Tag: students

Disabled students’ rights are still being ignored

In the context of wider financial pressures on providers, universities can be a challenging environment to work in at present.

So, a crackdown on ensuring all disabled student support plans are both in place and implemented may have fallen to the bottom of the to-do list. Couple that with delays in the Disabled Students’ Allowance system and it’s a pretty bleak picture for disabled students.

The findings of this year’s Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) annual report echo these concerns.

Like last year’s report, self-identified disabled students were over-represented in complaints, with the proportion rising for 2024 from a third to just over 40 per cent. Of those who did disclose details of their disability, mental health issues were the largest category selected by students (46 per cent), and specific learning differences accounted for a third.

A bulk of complaints from students who self-identified as disabled related to support and reasonable adjustments to teaching and assessment not being implemented promptly or at all. This correlates to national trends as shown in Disabled Student UK’s annual survey of 1,200 disabled students across eight UK institutions, where only 39 per cent said they had their support needs implemented.

Delayed

OIA make it clear that delays to student support do happen and are not always a serious cause for concern. As they suggest, sometimes it may take a long time to identify what support works best for the student for their course of study, or the process is at a halt because a student’s application for DSA is significantly delayed.

However, as the annual report highlights:

there is no culture of accountability in place to ensure that disabled students receive the support that is necessary to place them on an equal footing for success with their peers.

Additionally, the OIA recommends that providers train and support academic staff in meeting the requirements of the Equality Act, as too often academic staff have not fully understood what is required and, instead, “default to standard [teaching] practices that do not meet disabled students’ needs. As a result disabled students are often left to muddle through at a significant disadvantage to their non-disabled peers.

Let’s recap

Last week, the Disabled Students Commission published guidance clarifying the legal responsibilities of providers when it comes to competence standards and reasonable adjustments. Under the Equality Act 2010, providers are accountable for their acts and omissions in relation to disabled students. This includes a duty to make reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled applicants and students do not experience substantial disadvantages in comparison to non-disabled people.

As the guidance explains, two considerations that should be used in decision-making as to what constitutes reasonable are whether the adjustment is possible and if there is a reasonable assumption that the adjustment might be effective in reducing substantial disadvantage for a disabled student.

One of these considerations is whether a reasonable adjustment is financially viable. But while institutions must consider the total resource cost, this factor alone, according to the guidance, rarely automatically precludes an adjustment from being reasonable.

It’s a squeeze

A real risk here, given current financial circumstances, is that resources for disabled students continue to be squeezed, potentially making it harder to access adequate support.

While financial strain alone is not a good enough reason not to implement a lawful duty, there is already significant evidence that disabled students’ needs are not currently being met. With a move towards self-service across student-facing roles, it paints an unpromising picture for future support for disabled students, unless something changes sharpish.

Both the DSC and the OIA urge further signposting around competence standards for students and staff. The annual report suggests that they still instances where there is no clarity for students or staff within course documents about what competence standards will be assessed.

If a competence standard is not defined, given that they are exempt from the duty to make reasonable adjustments, it is difficult for a provider to decide if a reasonable adjustment requested by a disabled student is, in fact, reasonable.

Get it right

Providers need to ensure that accurate information about competence standards and the possibility of reasonable adjustments is made available to both students and staff, including prospective students.

Providers and individual staff are operating under strain at the moment, but it’s crucial to remember that supporting disabled students is not optional – it is a legal requirement. These aren’t practices and processes that can be prioritised based on finances, it’s a baseline, legal requirement disabled students are entitled to.

Understandably in the current climate, some may feel resistant to adding additional responsibilities to an already heavy workload, especially as the number of students declaring a disability in recent years has increased. But addressing students’ needs proactively avoids the much greater financial and reputational costs associated with complaints and compensation. If institutions feel they don’t have the time or capacity to prioritise inclusive practices now, they risk spending a greater amount of time, money and resources later managing avoidable grievances.

And if that isn’t enough, surely disabled students deserve better than having their legal rights to equity perpetually sidelined or ignored.

Source link

April 29, 2025
How colleges can support transgender students amid the Trump administration

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Almost immediately after taking office, President Donald Trump launched a flurry of executive orders and policy directives that threaten to roll back the civil rights of transgender and nonbinary students and erase their identities. The administration has also targeted colleges that support transgender inclusion.

Despite these moves, legal experts and transgender rights experts say college leaders can protect transgender and nonbinary students and make their campuses welcoming spaces. That type of support can be crucial to recruit those students, as well as improve their mental health and well-being on campus.

But implementing affirming policies for those students can be challenging, as institutions risk losing federal funding or facing Title IX investigations under the policies now in place.

One of Trump’s executive orders declares the federal government will only recognize two sexes, male and female, which the directive said cannot be changed — a policy out of step with scientific understanding.

Another executive order, which was blocked by a federal court, withheld federal funding to medical providers that provide gender-affirming care, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapies, to transgender people under the age of 19. An additional order directed federal agencies to end “equity-related” grants “to the maximum extent allowed by law.”

The U.S. Department of Education also issued guidance in late January advising education leaders to follow the previous Trump administration’s Title IX regulations after the Biden-era version of the rules were struck down. The Trump administration’s letter stated the department will enforce Title IX in a way that is consistent with Trump’s executive order mandating the federal government only recognize two sexes that cannot be changed.

This interpretation stands in contrast with the Biden-era version of the Title IX rules, which had prohibited discrimination based on gender identity. The Biden administration also withdrew proposed Title IX rules in December that would have barred blanket bans on transgender students participating on sports teams aligning with their gender identity.

Yet another executive order targeted an extremely small sliver of student athletes nationwide by threatening to withhold federal funding from colleges or K-12 schools that allow transgender girls and women from competing in sports aligning with their gender identity. The NCAA revised its policies to comply with the order.

The new administration has already opened Title IX investigations into San José State University, the University of Pennsylvania, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, and others that allow or have allowed transgender women or girls to participate on teams corresponding with their gender identity.

However, the enforceability of the Trump administration’s recent executive orders, which are essentially “ideological policy statements,” has not yet been determined, said Elana Redfield, federal policy director at the University of California, Los Angeles’ Williams Institute.

At the very least, colleges shouldn’t be rushing to implement “harmful and discriminatory policies” before they are legally required to do so, said Jose Abrigo, an attorney and HIV project director for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. The policies could be blocked or modified by the courts and preemptive compliance could “needlessly harm students,” he said.

The executive orders try to suppress speech, erase identities and punish those who affirm the existence of transgender and nonbinary people on college campuses — institutions that are meant to be “bastions of free thought and open discourse,” Abrigo said.

“Academic institutions should be places where truth is explored, not dictated,” Abrigo said, “where students are empowered to live authentically, not forced into silence by discriminatory and unconstitutional edicts from the president.”

How colleges can protect trans students

College leaders have several ways to affirm and protect their transgender and nonbinary students, experts say.

Higher ed institutions are in the business of education, so they should be informing students about what gender-affirming care is available and how they can access it, said Genny Beemyn, director of the Stonewall Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

They should also educate students about their options for changing their name and gender markers on legal documents and their rights concerning use of locker rooms or restrooms corresponding to their gender identities both nationally and in their own states, they added.

Policies allowing students to easily change their names across campus can be effective, said Sarah Lipson, a public health professor at Boston University. These allow a transgender student to enter a new classroom and avoid a faculty member referring to them by their deadname — a name given to them that they no longer use, she said.

But those policies should be flexible, such as including a transgender student’s deadname in communications to their family if they are not out at home, she said.

Colleges also need to provide support to transgender and nonbinary students through campus counseling centers, Beemyn said. Smaller colleges without counseling centers can refer students to outside therapists that work with transgender or nonbinary people, they said.

Gender-inclusive housing is also critical for transgender students, Lipson said. Placing transgender students in single occupancy dorms to avoid pairing them with another student who shares their gender assigned at birth is “not inclusive,” she said.

“That’s really changing the college environment for the trans student by saying you have to live by yourself in order to be part of this community,” Lipson said.

Public colleges in red states with transgender-affirming restrictions have other options to support or recruit transgender and nonbinary students, Lipson said. For instance, they could limit pronoun use on admission documents, referring instead to students by their names. Colleges could also use plural or gender-neutral pronouns instead of “he or she” or “your son or daughter,” she said.

“It requires combing through a lot of materials, but most importantly the front-facing admissions materials to ensure that those are not unnecessarily reinforcing a gender binary,” Lipson said.

The biggest thing colleges could do now is not erase their transgender and nonbinary students, Abrigo said. Instead, campus officials should recognize their existence, affirm their identities, and ensure they have access to the resources and support they need, he said.

College leaders can simply send messages to students, reminding them that transgender and nonbinary students matter, that they’re part of the campus community and that they’re aware of the threats against them, Lipson said.

“Some of these students that we’ve talked to in red states were really reflecting that,” Lipson said. “‘We feel that people are really looking out for us to the extent that they can.’”

Non-affirming campuses could impact mental health

The mental health impact of the executive orders on students can vary — depending in part on where they are in the process of coming out as transgender or nonbinary, Beemyn said.

Beemyn is working on a study that asks transgender students if the national climate is affecting whether they are willing to be out about their gender identity.

Some students in liberal states or at progressive colleges — especially those with a strong support network — don’t feel the effects of national politics as much, Beemyn said. However, the national discourse has prompted some students to say they are less likely to come out to new people and want to be less visible, they said.

“It would make logical sense that if someone can’t be themselves and has to hide who they are, that’s going to have negative effects on someone’s sense of well-being and sense of belonging, community and self-worth,” Beemyn said.

The prevalence of mental health issues is disproportionately high among higher ed students who are transgender and nonbinary — but those rates can differ from campus to campus, Lipson said.

“It would make logical sense that if someone can’t be themselves and has to hide who they are, that’s going to have negative effects on someone’s sense of well-being and sense of belonging, community and self-worth.”

Genny Beemyn

Director, Stonewall Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Boston University researchers analyzed national data from more than 11,000 transgender and nonbinary students at about 250 U.S. colleges and universities collected between 2022 and 2024.

Overall, the research showed just 16% of transgender and nonbinary students are “flourishing” on campus. But that rate is much higher at some campuses, reaching 50% at some institutions, said Lipson.

The rate of students experiencing symptoms of depression also fluctuated widely across colleges, from about 33% to upwards of 90% of transgender and nonbinary students, Lipson said. The rate of anxiety varied dramatically as well, ranging between 28% and 82%, she said.

The researchers haven’t yet examined which institutional policies might account for differences in mental health outcomes across campuses, but they plan to explore that next, said Lipson.

Even so, researchers already know access to mental health care varies greatly. At some campuses, as few as 30% of transgender students said they had access to competent mental health care, compared with over 80% at other institutions, Lipson said.

“There is a lot of variation in all of these outcomes — mental health, treatment use, and discrimination as well,” said Lipson. “That suggests that college campuses are playing a role in explaining this variation.”

Complying with the anti-trans laws

Many conservative states have enacted anti-transgender laws, including statutes barring transgender students from participating in athletics or using locker rooms or bathrooms that align with their gender identities. Finding a balance between complying with anti-trans policies while minimizing harm to transgender and nonbinary students can be challenging.

In February, new restroom signs at the University of Cincinnati reading “biological men” and “biological women” sparked student outcry.

The university stated it was following a Ohio law that took effect Feb. 25 requiring schools to designate multi-person student restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms and showers to be used exclusively by students of the male or female “biological sex only.” The law requires “clear signage” to make those designations.

But on Feb. 26, university administrators apologized in a letter to students and said they would replace the signs, adding that use of the term “biological” on the signs was “an error on our part.” Republican state Rep. Adam Bird, who cosponsored the bill, reportedly said the term “biological” wasn’t needed on the signs to comply with the law.

“Academic institutions should be places where truth is explored, not dictated.”

Jose Abrigo

HIV project director, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund

As with state laws, colleges should take Trump’s executive orders as serious threats that merit a response to protect the organization, UCLA’s Redfield said. A loss of federal funding could be consequential, considering higher ed institutions provide a wealth of research and data collection about the experiences of transgender people, she said.

College leaders should likewise understand the threats are motivated not by science, but by ideology and bias against transgender and nonbinary people, Redfield said.

Beemyn echoed those comments. The laws make it “impossible for [transgender and nonbinary students] to live their lives in a way that’s right for them. That’s a real denial of their humanity,” Beemyn said.

The University of Washington said it’s not taking any “preemptive actions” until it receives further guidance on how to comply with the Education Department’s Dear Colleague letter regarding Title IX enforcement.

“We are committed to providing access to excellence and a welcoming environment for all and believe that a breadth of perspectives and experiences make for a richer educational experience for everyone,” the University of Washington said in a Feb. 25 statement to Higher Ed Dive.

If higher education institutions like the University of Washington and others want transgender and nonbinary students at their schools, they need to figure out ways to recognize their existence, said Redfield.

“They have to make it clear that their intention is to create an environment where trans and nonbinary students can thrive,” she said.

Source link

April 28, 2025
Colleges, Students Prefer Inclusive Access Models for Books

College affordability is one of the chief concerns of students, families, taxpayers and lawmakers in the U.S., and it extends beyond tuition prices.

Costly course materials can impede student access and success in the classroom. Over half of college students say the high price of course materials has pushed them to enroll in fewer classes or opt out of a specific course, according to a 2023 survey.

A new report from Tyton Partners, published today, finds that affordable-access programs that provide necessary materials can save students money and improve their outcomes. The report pulls data from surveys of students, administrators and faculty, as well as market research on the topic.

The background: Affordable-access programs, also called inclusive-access programs, bill students directly for their textbooks as part of their tuition and fees. Through negotiations among publishers, institutions and campus bookstores, students pay a below-market rate for their course materials, which are often digital.

This model ensures all students start the term with access to the required textbooks and course materials, allowing them to apply financial aid to textbook costs, which removes out-of-pocket expenses at the start of the term. A 2023 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed found that over half of respondents have avoided buying or renting a book for class due to costs.

The first federal regulations for affordable-access programs were set in 2015 to help cap course material costs and spur utilization of inclusive access on campuses. In 2024, the Biden administration sought to redefine inclusive access by making models opt-in to provide students with greater autonomy, but the plan was ultimately paused. Most colleges have an opt-out model of affordable-access programs, requiring students to elect to be removed, according to Tyton’s report.

Critics of affordable-access programs argue that an across-the-board rate eliminates students’ ability to employ their own cost-saving methods, such as buying books secondhand or using open educational resources. Students often lose access to digital resources at the end of the term, limiting their ability to reuse or reference them.

Findings from Tyton Partners’ research point to the value of day-one course materials for student success, which can be provided through opt-out inclusive-access models.

The report: Affordable-access programs are tied to lower costs for participating students, according to the report. The average digital list price for course materials per class was $91, but the average price for course materials for students in an inclusive-access program was $58 per class. (A 2023 survey found the average student spent about $285 on course materials in the 2022–23 academic year, or roughly $33 per item.)

Opt-out affordable-access models have also placed downward pricing pressure on the market; the compound annual growth rate of course materials declined from 6.1 percent to 0.3 percent since the 2015 ED regulations.

A student survey by Tyton found that 61 percent of respondents favor affordable-access models compared to buying (13 percent), renting (11 percent) or borrowing (10 percent) course materials.

Another Angle

The Tyton Partners report identifies opt-out affordable access as one intervention that can ensure all students have access to course materials on day one, which is tied to better student outcomes.

Open educational resources, which are not mentioned in the report, are another method of ensuring students have access to digital course materials at the start of the term at no additional cost to the student.

Among students participating in inclusive access, 84 percent said they felt satisfied or neutral about their user experience, according to a survey by the National Association of College Stores. Students who had a positive view of inclusive access cited the convenience of not shopping for materials (80 percent), day-one access (78 percent) and knowing all their course materials are correct (71 percent) as the top benefits.

Among colleges that do offer inclusive access, those with opt-out models see higher student participation than those with opt-in models (96 percent versus 36 percent, respectively). Administrators report that some students, especially first-year and first-generation students, are less likely to engage in opt-in models and may then struggle because they lack the required materials, which researchers argue enables gaps to persist in student outcomes.

Researchers compared two community colleges and found that students who participated in an opt-out equitable-access program had higher course completion and lower withdrawal rates, compared to their peers who opted in. Learners from underrepresented minority backgrounds, including Black and multiracial students, saw greater gains as well.

While a majority of students indicated a preference for inclusive-access models, it’s still paramount that institutions help students fully understand the benefits of participation and offer them seamless opportunities to opt out, according to Tyton’s report.

After adopting inclusive access, institutions were likely to increase offerings and expand the number of courses within the model. A majority of surveyed faculty members (75 percent) said their institution should maintain or increase affordable-access model usage.

Report authors noted a higher administrative burden in an opt-in model, because costs are applied and resources given to each individual student who opts in, rather than simply removing students who opt out. “Since no technology currently automates the opt-in process, most institutions would need to expand their academic affairs, faculty affairs and information technology teams to handle the increased workload under opt-in models,” according to the report.

Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

Source link

April 28, 2025
Thinking about the support of Chinese students: a response to HEPI’s recent report
In December 2024, HEPI and Uoffer Global published How can UK universities improve their strategies for tackling integration challenges among Chinese students? by Pippa Ebel. In this blog, academics at the Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester give their thoughts on the report. Beneath that, Pippa Ebel has provided her response.
- By Dr Paul Vincent Smith, Lecturer in Education; Dr Alex Baratta, Reader in Language & Education; Dr Heather Cockayne, Lecturer in International Education; and Dr Rui He, Lecturer in Education, who are all at the Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester.
The HEPI and Uoffer Global report How can UK universities improve their strategies for tackling integration challenges among Chinese students?, by Pippa Ebel, provides a series of ideas for supporting Chinese students. This clear and succinct report left us wanting more detail on some of its conclusions. However, we also noted that the report’s focus on integration is one that has been problematised in recent publications. In this response, we suggest some contrasting perspectives on the support of Chinese students for the purposes of further discussion.

Generalising along national lines

The framing of the report along the lines of national identity unavoidably makes for a broad-brush approach. We suspect Ebel would agree with us when we suggest that we cannot assume Chinese students will have uniform ambitions and desires. Although the structural conditions under which students are recruited must be taken into account (see ‘Admissions’ below), there is an increasing recognition of students as independent agents, capable of making their own choices, rather than being passive vessels of their national culture.

Further, there are other student characteristics to bear in mind. For example, we suggest that the distinction between undergraduate and postgraduate student experiences should be reflected in how students are offered support. At the University of Manchester, international students comprise around one-third of the student body; at the taught postgraduate level, it is more than half. Many of these are students from China. When considering educational level alone, then, there are likely to be differences between students who will spend three years in a setting of student diversity, and those who will spend a calendar year in the UK, predominantly among compatriots.

What do students really need universities to do?

The report suggests that ‘Most Chinese students would like more digital support from their institutions’ (p. 41), with the report tending to focus on social media. Yet (p. 27) 60% of Chinese learners are nonetheless described as using Whatsapp and Instagram; they simply have a preference for the continued use of equivalent Chinese platforms.

We infer from the report the idea that Chinese students are missing out by not using ‘our’ platforms. It is suggested (p. 41) that Chinese students could be involved in marketing decisions on whether to use Western or Chinese platforms for social media messaging. This would have the advantage of directly involving Chinese students. It begs the question, though, of whether time is better spent on choosing the best platform for a given purpose, or on establishing a broad social media presence to maximise coverage.

Our experience suggests that students find their domestic digital ecosystem enabling in a UK context. It also suggests that there might be some question of validity when it comes to the report findings. Is this a case of higher education researchers asking: ‘Would you like more support?’, and the students understandably answering ‘yes’?

Admissions to UK universities

The report has much to say on how Chinese students are admitted to UK universities. The ‘ethnic clustering’ addressed in the report is an index of how the university sector is organised and how universities generate income. Several of UK universities recruit thousands of Chinese students annually. It is well documented that many students will base their choices on university standings, purposefully selecting universities that are in the top 100 of world rankings. In this context, there is a limit to what agents who are charged with ‘promoting under-subscribed courses’ (p. 40) could achieve.

The use of AI-supported interviews to further test applicants’ spoken English is again thought-provoking, but requires more discussion. This practice seems to be an invitation for universities to spend money on additional admissions arrangements, in order to reduce income by rejecting students who, while they may have otherwise met the formal language criteria for admission, fall foul of new spoken English tests, the requirements of which are in their formative stages.

Institutional responses to proficiency in English

The report takes a particular position on the English proficiency of Chinese students. We agree that universities and their staff must be able to invoke standards of language for purposes including admissions and assessment. As teaching staff, though, we find that there are many steps to traverse before we conclude that any particular student behaviour can be attributed to linguistic proficiency. Have we met the students on their own terms, and found out about them as learners? Before we insist on invoking linguistic standards, are we satisfied that there are no better explanations for (e.g.) classroom silence? The issue of classroom passivity is not one specific to international students, although it seems that the wider issue is being put to one side in favour of a focus on some international students.

Not least among these matters is that of how China English is manifested in student academic writing. In many cases, the language used in student texts is highly systematic and obeys the rules of a fully-fledged language. There is a need to raise awareness of these features. With regard to spoken language, perceived proficiency is not always about the grasp of the language itself, but can also be associated with the spaces students are working in. Lack of confidence (as noted on p. 16 of the report), mental health, sense of belonging, and divisive university-level language policies may all have an impact.

The discussion of IELTS in the report is notable for what it omits. Is it the case that universities are putting IELTS to a purpose it is not fit for; or that universities think of IELTS as a guarantee of proficiency rather than a time-and-space-constrained test result for which universities themselves, along with UKVI, have set the standards for success? We welcome the contribution of the report on this point, and we would be interested to read more on the author’s broader perspective and recommendations on IELTS.

Integrating or including?

Chinese students remain the largest international group on UK campuses, attracting ongoing attention from higher education policy-makers and practitioners. Nonetheless, where we see a focus on a single group, we need to ask how universities can manage their support without falling into the trap of re-hashing existing deficit narratives. Work on internationalisation in universities has suggested that ‘practice[s] with the most demonstrable impact on students’ include embedding internationalisation holistically across the institution, and encouraging inclusion – as opposed to integration, which is not always well-conceptualised. There is a balance to be struck between the economy of generalising according to background, and providing local, co-constructed spaces for students as independent agents to meet their own needs.

I have been pleasantly surprised by the degree and depth of feedback received in response to my report published at the end of last year. It is always better to have engagement of any kind than none at all. Two threads of response have been most striking: the first by management teams of universities and education organisations wanting to better understand the report and how to apply it to their own strategies. Secondly, by Chinese students themselves on platforms like Little Red Book, with whom the report has thankfully resonated and prompted further discussion and exchange. Both are incredibly heartening. Yet as expected, responses have not all been glowing, and I am particularly grateful for the response issued by academics at the University of Manchester which critically addresses several points. It reflects in a nuanced way on my arguments and contributes valuable questions.

I hope to add the following reflections in order to continue the dialogue on the report, as well as acknowledge the time and effort they put into forming a response.

The value of identifying patterns & trends within a single ethnic group

As suggested, I recognise that Chinese students do not have ‘uniform ambitions or desires’. My extensive conversations with Chinese students from a range of backgrounds have shown me how personal and individual every university experience is. However, in a report focusing exclusively on one group – partly chosen for the fact it represents the second largest international student group in the UK – a principle aim is to extract trends and patterns which can be useful in promoting better understanding and empathy. My report does not make statements such as ‘the Chinese student experience is X’ or ‘all Chinese students think…’, instead it focuses on which challenges were most consistent among a diverse group of Chinese respondents. It is important, for instance, for universities to understand that probably their entire Chinese student body uses WeChat, and how this cultural phenomenon might shape their digital behaviour on campus.

A more detailed explanation of divergent social media usage

My report is in fact entirely in agreement with the respondents in finding that China’s own social media platforms – such as Little Red Book – are enabling when transposed to a UK context, providing key information about the locality (for instance, hospital services and banks).

The report does not ask whether Chinese students should continue to use their own software, or switch to a local one. Rather, it investigates the habits and preferences of Chinese students in the UK, in order to raise awareness of differences with other local and international students. How universities choose to engage with this information is an open question, but it raises the point that if universities wish to improve communication channels with Chinese students they must first understand which platforms are being used, and how.

Promoting undersubscribed courses, not institutions

The respondents rightly observed that the preference of UK institutions among Chinese students is the result of an emphasis on rankings, leading to a preference for the top 100 institutions. However, the respondents misunderstood my assertion that agents should promote ‘less well-known courses’ to mean they should promote a broader range of universities. Since agents often work on behalf of universities, this would clearly not be a realistic suggestion, as they would not be incentivised to promote an institution that was not their client.

My suggestion was to help agents promote different courses which are less well-known and undersubscribed among international students. Furthermore, it was to encourage universities to maintain closer dialogue with their agents to better communicate their needs (and gaps), as well as to receive useful information from agents who are in daily conversation with prospective students. During a conversation with a senior faculty member from a UK institution with a meaningful agent network in China, the complaint was raised that the more niche or newer courses in science have surprisingly few Chinese students. Whilst this is a single anecdote, it was consistent with prior findings. Chinese students veer towards courses which are actively promoted, or undertaken by fellow students in their network: Business, Engineering, Marketing… This means that more niche, but perhaps highly suitable courses are overlooked. Do prospective students, for instance, know that Bristol has 16 courses related to Economics, or might they presume quite reasonably that there is just one?

Language challenges, explained

The respondents thoughtfully add to my point on language challenges of Chinese students by highlighting the differences in the education systems of China and the UK. These are indeed pertinent and have been written about at length (one reason why I chose not to focus on this area). My interviews with students indeed reflected surprise with the academic environment at UK institutions, which promoted a form of debate and discussion they were unused to. This aspect, however, doesn’t contradict the argument of Chinese students being underconfident in expressing themselves in English, but adds another dimension in explaining their underconfidence within a classroom setting.

The response asks for further clarity on my assessment of IELTS as a suitable language evaluation tool. As stated, I believe that IELTS is too heavily relied on as a tool for understanding a student’s overall language ability and their suitability to enrol in a course. Whilst IELTS provides an indication of level, it is incomplete and as Manchester points out ‘a time-and-space constrained test’. The report suggests that universities consider additional methods of evaluation, for instance online or pre-recorded interviews, in order to gain a more holistic and accurate perspective. In a world where AI is proving increasingly central to our lives, universities might benefit from investment into AI tools which could elevate and enhance their recruitment processes.

(Hopefully not) a final word

My report does not assume that students should or must integrate. Rather it questions assumptions around the degree to which Chinese students wish to engage with their institution (particularly socially), and highlights distinct facets of the Chinese experience which may be less well known by institutions and non-Chinese students.

I do not personally see the term ‘integration’ as problematic. I interpret it to mean engaging with and understanding a local context, not compromising one’s own unique identity and background to fit in. I commend the respondents’ use of the term ‘inclusion’ and agree we should all be aspiring towards a more inclusive environment on campuses. However, I assert that in order to make an environment more inclusive, it is first necessary to raise awareness and understanding of the individuals we are attempting to include. Without this understanding, how do we know what inclusive looks like?

Awareness of the unique and precise challenges international students face – Chinese or otherwise – is the first step to actually making them feel included. It is not showcasing a range of faces on the front page of a brochure, or hosting Chinese calligraphy workshops on campus. It is creating structural opportunities in which students can give feedback and embedding representative voices of these different groups within the institution at diverse levels, be it the students’ union, alumni office or governing board.

I welcome any additional points, and again reiterate my thanks for a thoughtful response to my original report.
Source link
April 28, 2025
Latest from Belong – students’ health is not OK, and that’s not OK
It’s hard to learn if you’re ill – good health is one of the classic prerequisites to learning.

But one of the most frustrating things about the debate around student health in the UK is that there isn’t one.

Anecdotally, poor access to preventative healthcare and health services tends to be justified either by NHS pressure from an ageing population or by expectations that universities should do more with less.

Both arguments have merit, but they leave the crucial link between health and academic success stuck in that Spiderman meme, while the public and the press blames students for “boozing it up” or “inventing ADHD.”

Mental health is well, almost over-researched – but health concerns for students go far beyond the usual talking points. Gonorrhoea diagnoses are at record levels, with the UK Health Security Agency identifying students as a key factor, drugs are the subject of many a survey, disordered eating among students is largely ignored, and sleep deprivation seems to be an issue. Some surveys say dental issues are increasingly common – as one expert notes, “dental health is mental health.”

The question is whether any of these issues are unique to students – and to the extent to which they are, what sorts of policy interventions might address them.

In the latest wave of Belong, our polling partnership with Cibyl (which our subscriber SUs can take part in for free), we examined everything from general health perceptions and healthcare access to specific areas like sleep quality, alcohol consumption, sexual health confidence, and experiences with the NHS.

The results come from our early 2025 wave, with responses from 1,055 students across 88 providers. The data has been weighted for gender and qualification type (undergraduate, postgraduate taught, and postgraduate research) to ensure representativeness. There’s also analysis of various free-text questions to illustrate what’s going underneath the headline results.

Yeah, I’m OK

First of all, we asked students a standard question used in national surveys asking them to rate their own health. Only 20 per cent of students rate their health as “very good” compared to 48 per cent of the general population.

Combined figures show that while 61 per cent of students report “good” or “very good” health (compared to 82 per cent in the general population), a full 32 per cent describe their health as merely “fair” – nearly two and a half times the rate in the general population.

Qualitative comments illuminate what lies beneath. Many students clearly differentiate between their physical and mental wellbeing:

My physical health is generally good, whereas I have faced some struggles in mental health (which can also at times impact my physical health).

Physical is usually good but sometimes a little bit hungry after trying to save some food for other days. Mentally I am ok but I don’t fill very fulfilled.

My physical health is immaculate however my mental health is the worst it’s ever been.

Several respondents directly connected their health status to the pressures of university life:

Could be better, I’m finding learning incredibly stressful as part of a full-time job.

Almost died from an overdose of caffeine trying to work on a essay and had two breakdowns.

Feel very tired due to uni, aware my health could be better, but do not have the time.

For others, university has provided structure and support:

Being at uni has helped me focus more on my self care and mental health to improve

My health is generally good because I prioritise self-care, balance my studies, part-time work, and rest, and use available support when needed.

Many respondents described their health as variable and requiring ongoing management:

I am physically keeping fit, mental health I am working on, some days are better than others.

My everyday health is a constant battle that I have to take a multitude of medications. I have good days and bad days and am lucky if I get a decent amount of sleep.

Everyone gets their bad days and good.

A significant number of students also reported living with chronic physical health conditions or disabilities:

I’m disabled. I always feel bad.

I am a full time wheelchair user with ME and fibromyalgia, so I am in a lot of pain and fatigue.

I had a diagnosis of a rare cancer called Leiomyosarcoma in 2023. The cancer has gone but it’s left me with a whole range of health problems.

Overall, the narrative accounts reveal complexity – where mental and physical wellbeing are often experienced differently, academic pressures can both harm and support health, daily fluctuations in health status are common, and chronic conditions create persistent challenges that require constant navigation of university life.

Correlations or causations?

We wanted to know if there are relationships between health and key elements of student experience. The data shows strong correlations between student health perceptions and their sense of belonging – among students reporting “very good” or “good” health, 85 per cent feel part of a community, compared to just 68 per cent among those reporting “bad” or “very bad” health:

This pattern extends to whether students feel free to speak – 93 per cent of those with better health feel free to express themselves, compared to only 77 per cent of those reporting poorer health conditions:

On teaching quality, 91 per cent of students with “very good” or “good” health report positive teaching quality, while 84 per cent of students with “fair,” “bad,” or “very bad” health still rate teaching quality positively:

Correlation is not causation – though it’s technically possible that poor teaching or poor belonging is making students ill, to the extent that the free text offers clues, it suggests that the causation is the other way around – poor health appears to be robbing students of the ability to take advantage of the academic and social opportunities on offer.

Are you registered?

The good news in our polling is that most students (93 per cent) are registered with a GP. The problem is that only 65 per cent are registered near their place of study. A quarter (25 per cent) remain registered elsewhere in the UK, while five per cent maintain registration in another country:

The qualitative comments reveal several distinct reasons for not registering locally. Many students commute to university and maintain their home GP registration:

Because I don’t live at uni. I commute. So it would make sense to have my GP in my home town

As I do not live on campus, it is easier for me to stay registered with my GP, who is closer to home.

Even students who do live at university often cite proximity to home as a reason not to change registration:

It’s only an hour to my home town so easier just to stick with them.

Don’t feel I live far enough away from home to register with another GP.

Continuity of care emerges as another significant concern:

If I sign up for a local GP here, I would be de-registered from my home GP. Since I prefer to stay with my home GP for continuity of care and I only need healthcare support when I’m at home, I haven’t registered with a GP at uni.

Because I am waiting for talking therapies which I can only get if I am registered with a GP in Somerset so registering in Plymouth will take me off of the waiting list.

I have been on a waiting list for migraine treatments in my home town and don’t want to start again and wait even longer.

Home GP knows about my disabilities and there back history.

And some students express concerns about quality of care:

They are useless.

I’ve heard some horror stories about the GP here, and when my friend was too sick to eat or sleep, they wouldn’t even talk to her.

Dental registration shows a more concerning pattern, with a third of students (33 per cent) reporting they are not registered with a dentist at all. Only 17 per cent are registered near their place of study, while 31 per cent maintain registration elsewhere in the UK and 12 per cent in another country:

Despite the low registration rate, 56 per cent report having had a dental check-up in the past 12 months – almost identical to rates found in the general population, although that’s hardly a corks-popping moment for the country.

Students cite NHS availability and cost as major barriers:

There is no NHS dentist available in the county!

There are no dentist mine is private.

NHS is underfunded so it’s impossible to access these services. Private dentists are unaffordable.

It is literally cheaper for me to travel to my country for a dentist appointment where there is healthcare than doing it here.

Many students also note that dental appointments can be scheduled during visits home:

Dental care is something that is tended to like every 6 months or so. So it makes sense to just keep the appointments whenever I am back home.

Only visit once every 6 months so can plan to go home when the appointment is approaching.

As with GP services, commuting students typically maintain their home dentist:

I commute rather than live on campus, so it was more convenient to stay with my dentist closer to where I live.

Loyalty to existing dentists also emerged as a significant factor:

I’m with an NHS dentist at home and I don’t want to lose my NHS dentist by moving to a different one as it’s difficult to find NHS dentists.

I go home enough to see my home dentist who has known me for 20 years.

Can’t get no

In early April, the long-running British Social Attitudes survey told us that public satisfaction with the NHS had hit a new low – just 21 per cent said they were satisfied with the NHS in 2024, with waiting times and staff shortages the biggest concerns.

So we wanted to know what students think. In our polling nearly half (49 per cent) reported being either “very dissatisfied” (12 per cent) or “quite dissatisfied” (37 per cent) with the NHS. In contrast, only 31 per cent expressed satisfaction, with a mere three per cent indicating they are “very satisfied”:

Many respondents expressed frustration with the difficulty of getting appointments and lengthy waiting times:

12 hours wait time at A&E is scandalous, people die waiting for ambulances, good luck getting an appointment.

It takes too long to get anything sorted.

I have waited long periods to have health checks and it has taken months to get in to see anyone.

Can’t seem to get a same day appointment.

A significant number attributed NHS problems to systemic underfunding:

It is underfunded, there is too much stress on all the services so they can’t take care of patients properly.

It’s massively underfunded and unsupported by the government. The Tories ripped it to shreds.

As an international student I pay £776 for this shit shower, joke of a country really is.

It isn’t the fault of the nurses, doctors hospital staff etc. It’s that the NHS is criminally underfunded.

Many highlighted specific concerns about mental health services:

You have to be attempting to kill yourself for the NHS to help you with mental health problems.

I’m diagnosed with anxiety and it’s been the worst mistake of my life I wish I just kept it between me and my therapist they don’t listen to a word I say.

The NHS cannot take the strain of the sheer number of mentally ill young people.

Mental health services and waiting times just to have initial appointments are terrible.

Respondents also expressed frustration with a lack of communication between different parts of the system:

Nobody talks to each other and waiting lists are long.

Lack of communication between hospitals, staff members within the same hospital.

Less continuity of staff – like you’re on a conveyor belt passed along looking at the surface issue – not the deeper.

Long waiting times and lack of communication between various departments. Over complicated administration processes.

And some had specific concerns about the quality of care they received:

When I went to an emergency dentist in the UK, they left something in my tooth that rotted and I had to have the tooth removed.

I’ve been to 4 different hospitals about my knee which keeps dislocating and popping. They don’t care to be honest.

A male consultant kept refusing to answer my questions before a medical procedure and complained when I refused to let him touch me.

I feel like I treat myself rather than being treated.

Drugs, alcohol and food

Plenty of press stories surround the idea that Gen Z is more likely to be clean living and teetotal than previous generations. Our polling suggests that 26 per cent of students never consume alcohol – a slightly higher abstention rate than the general adult population, where according to the latest NHS data 19 per cent report not drinking in the past year.

For those who do drink, consumption patterns are distributed across different frequencies:

This pattern suggests lower regular drinking among students compared to the general adult population, where 48 per cent report drinking at least once a week. When students do drink, most report moderate consumption (the below graph only includes those who indicated they drink):

It’s worth noting that 7 per cent of respondents chose not to answer the question about quantity consumed, which may indicate some hesitancy to report higher levels of consumption.

We also asked about drugs – specifically asking students about illegal drugs or prescription drug misuse within the past month. The results show that a small minority of students (seven per cent) reported using illegal drugs or misusing prescription medications in the past month, a rate much lower than is often perceived.

Back in 2023 we also carried out polling on disordered eating amongst students, having spotted some pilot polling that the ONS did on the issue the previous year. Little has changed.

In the ONS work, our 2023 poll and this wave, we used the SCOFF questionnaire – a validated screening tool for detecting potential eating disorders – to assess students’ relationships with food and body image. The results show concerning patterns:
- Nine per cent reported making themselves sick because they felt uncomfortably full
- 26 per cent worried they had lost control over how much they eat
- Eight per cent reported significant weight loss in a three-month period
- 19 per cent believed themselves to be fat when others said they were thin
- 19 per cent reported that food dominates their life
When these responses are analysed according to SCOFF scoring criteria:
- 49 per cent showed no sign of possible issues (compared to 50 per cent in the ONS national sample)
- 25 per cent demonstrated possible issues with food or body image (compared to 23 per cent in ONS)
- 24 per cent showed possible eating disorder patterns (compared to 27 per cent in ONS)
The findings suggest that the UK student population closely mirrors national trends in disordered eating and problematic relationships with food and body image. The particularly high percentage of students who worry about losing control over eating (26 per cent) and who perceive themselves as fat when others say they’re thin (19 per cent) – and the relationship we found between those issues and mental health in 2023 – suggest significant work to yet be done, that could have very positive impacts.

No snooze, you lose

Sleep and rest is a huge part of health. Our results show a mixed picture over quality and quantity. While 47 per cent of students report “very good” (10 per cent) or “fairly good” (37 per cent) sleep quality, nearly a quarter (24 per cent) describe their sleep as “fairly poor” (15 per cent) or “very poor” (nine per cent). More than a quarter (28 per cent) fall into the middle category of “neither good nor poor.”

When it comes to sleep duration, half of students (50 per cent) report getting six to seven hours of sleep per night on average, with an additional 26 per cent getting eight to nine hours. However, a concerning 21 per cent are sleeping fewer than six hours per night, with 20 per cent getting just four to five hours and one per cent less than four hours.

The findings show a potential improvement compared to the polling we carried out a year ago, which found students were getting just 5.4 hours of sleep per night on average. Our current data suggests a higher proportion of students are now achieving six-plus hours of sleep – but it’s still not nearly enough.

The 2024 exercise saw strong relationships between sleep duration and both life satisfaction and anxiety levels. Students getting 8-8.9 hours of sleep reported significantly higher life satisfaction scores (6.9 versus the average of 6.3) and lower anxiety scores (4.7 versus the average of 5.0) compared to those sleeping less.

Students in that survey clearly recognised the importance of sleep:

I need more sleep!

Could probably do with more sleep, just trying to get 8 hours a week would be nice.

But the qualitative data highlighted several factors affecting student sleep patterns:
- Academic pressures: “Currently, the workload is too big.”
- Employment demands: “Being in my overdraft monthly, long hours at work cuts into my sleep time.”
- Irregular timetables: “What would help? A more consistent timetable.”
Housing a problem

Governments love their public policy silos – but one of the things SUs wanted us to look at was the relationship between housing and health. In this data, nearly half of respondents (49 per cent) reported that housing does affect their health – with 27 per cent noting a positive impact and 22 per cent experiencing negative effects:

Many students reported health concerns related to poor physical conditions in their accommodation:

Student houses have mold and have usually been untouched from when they were bought 12 years prior. My house has plenty of mold which no doubt hasn’t helped things when I have been unwell.

I live in a very mouldy flat that I have to spray at least once a fortnight to tackle the mould. It is damp and mouldy, but the landlord just tells me to open a window.

My window doesn’t open and was reported to reception before I even arrived in September I have gone back to report it to them multiple times and they still haven’t done anything about it. I also do not have an extractor fan which works in my bathroom this means I have no airflow in my room.

Housing affordability emerged as a significant stressor affecting mental health:

Every year when my rent is rised it impacts my mental and physical health hugely as it causes me a lot of stress and forces me to cut things that make me feel better.

It’s Cornwall so the housing situation is abysmal… Landlords and estate agents take advantage of this to a disgusting degree and overcharge students to the point of spending all or the vast majority of your student loan just on rent.

After rent I have no money. Landlords know how much student loans we get and scalp accordingly.

The social environment created by housemates significantly influences mental wellbeing, with both positive and negative experiences reported:

My flatmates are incredibly unclean and disrespectful.

My housemates are rude and disrespect and leave a mess everywhere and they smoke weed despite me asking them to stop loads. It makes me not want to be at home.

Although on the positive side:

My housemates are lovely people to talk to and I get along with them really well.

I love my housemates, we cook and eat dinner together every day and it’s nice to just hang out.

Insecurity about housing arrangements creates significant stress:

I rent privately, so the expensive rent combined with low-quality housing and anxiety around the permanence of my home significantly affect my anxiety.

I recently had my housing group fall apart and will need to give my ESA up to a friend of my partner in Essex due to inability to find student housing that will allow me to keep her.

Landlord left us with no heating or hot water for 2 months.

And some students reported significant benefits from supportive housing environments:

It has been beneficial moving out of a toxic home environment. I have become very close with a few of my flatmates here.

I recently got my own place after being in a house where I was abused. It’s more difficult financially but at least I don’t have someone else hurting me on purpose.

I have found moving to a house away from campus with people I am close with has had a positive effect due to the home/uni balance I now have.

It’s another classic silo issue. The failure of any of the four governments to cobble up a student housing policy is a housing issue – but it’s also an educational issue and a health issue. And because it’s a student issue, it ends up being an issue that is not handled or planned as an issue by anyone. And so it just gets worse every year.

Not so free periods

We were also asked to look at menstruation and sexual health. On the former, the results suggest that most respondents find menstrual products reasonably accessible – save for an important minority:

When asked whether menstruation impacts their daily life, respondents were fairly evenly split:

The relatively even division suggests that menstruation-related challenges continue to affect a significant proportion of the student population, potentially influencing their academic performance, social engagement, and overall university experience.

Then on sexual confidence and health, the results show generally high levels of self-reported confidence:

The standout is that approximately 18 per cent lack confidence in accessing NHS sexual health services – the highest area of uncertainty among those surveyed.

The findings present an interesting contrast to a 2021 HEPI survey on sex and sexual health among students. That research found significant variations in consent understanding and confidence levels, particularly when examining school background and gender.

In that work, privately educated males were a key issue:
- Only 37 per cent felt “very confident” in understanding what constitutes sexual consent (compared to 59 per cent of students overall)
- Only 34 per cent were “very confident” in how to communicate sexual consent clearly (versus 47 per cent overall)
- Only 41 per cent were “very confident” in how not to pressure others for sex (versus 61 per cent overall)
Our polling in this wave doesn’t have a large enough sample to offer similar demographic breakdowns, but the overall high confidence levels suggest either an improvement in students’ understanding since 2021 or – importantly – potential overconfidence in self-assessment.

For better or worse

Finally, we wanted to know whether students’ health had changed since coming to university. While 39 per cent reported their health has improved (with three per cent saying “much better” and 36 per cent “better”), 27 per cent indicated their health had worsened (23 per cent “worse” and four per cent “much worse”) – and a significant proportion (34 per cent) chose not to respond to this question.

Many students reported deteriorating mental health since beginning their studies:

Mental health has declined and physical health/pain got worse as well.

Academic pressure has made me feel depressed.

My mental health is no better and I have panic attacks at least two times a week.

Anxiety levels are higher, I feel socially overwhelmed after a day at uni.

Financial pressures emerge as a significant factor negatively impacting both physical and mental wellbeing:

I can’t afford a lot of things. I struggle to buy food period products, and other healthcare. I’m inclined to work when I’m sick because I need to cover tuition and rent.

I can’t afford basic nutrition.

Many students reported having less time or opportunity for physical activity:

Too tired to workout/run most days.

I feel I have less time to exercise. I spend more time on a computer which affects my hands and back.

I was much more physically active before starting university.

Changes in eating habits were commonly mentioned as negatively affecting health:

My diet is a lot worse, and I tend to be generally less healthy.

I put on a lot of weight due to staying in my room all day and not having enough money to afford a good diet.

As I am now living alone, so my eating issues have become worse as I am the one to control what I eat – so I will eat nothing for a month, and then gain all the weight back by giving up and binging.

It’s not all bad news. For those in the “improved” camp, increased physical activity (“I’ve been going to the gym since first year and have really enjoyed doing so”), better nutrition habits (“I have more control and time over my diet”), improved mental wellbeing (“Well at collage I was suicidal but at uni I don’t really have that inkling anymore”), greater autonomy over health choices (“Being more independent and in control of my life has done wonders for my physical and mental health”), and beneficial routines (“The routine has enabled me to keep in touch with my health a lot better”) were all key themes.

The positive experiences suggest that for a significant proportion of students, university can provide both the freedom and structure to develop healthier lifestyles and improved wellbeing.

If it was up to me

When, at the end of the survey, we asked students what they would change about health services if it was up to them, they offered a wealth of practical suggestions.

Mental health services emerged as a top priority, with clear calls for “more therapy sessions,” “expanded mental health services,” and “shorter waiting times or support whilst on waiting lists.” Many emphasised the need for greater coordination: “Less pressure to do so well academically. Student union need to put more pressure on the uni to allocate funds towards mental health services.”

Financial barriers to health featured prominently in student concerns. Suggestions included “lowering the cost of the university gym,” “free prescriptions till you finish uni,” and broader recommendations to “improve student finance so that students can afford to eat healthily.”

Improving access to NHS services was another key theme, with students recommending “a GP on campus perhaps or someone you can talk to before having to go to the GP” and “easier GP registration, shorter wait times for appointments.” Some highlighted specific needs for marginalised groups: “Fast tracking marginalised students who are already forced through forms and waiting list just to access their healthcare.”

Sexual and reproductive health resources were frequently mentioned, with calls for “free condoms across campus,” “free period products,” and “more information about sexual health/like events centred around that, including sexual health for trans people and using inclusive language.”

Many also stressed the need for better information and outreach, suggesting “having a known place to access in a casual manner,” “health advice given in more accessible areas,” and “making clear where and how to access it with a focus on helping international students navigate a new system.”

And several comments addressed broader cultural and systemic issues: “Stop encouraging mid-week drinking, university alcoholism culture is insane”, “More conversations about loneliness, it’s weirdly normalised at uni” and “Address systemic bias in medicine, especially impacting women.”

An agenda for change

There are bits of good news – but the big picture that emerges from our findings is stark and troubling. 20 per cent of students reporting “very good” health compared to 48 per cent in the general population is a disparity that would prompt immediate intervention in any other population group. But that problematic place in the policy Venn that students are in – both largely young and belonging to DfE, not DHSC – leaves them ignored. This student offers a damning indictment of a system where basic physiological needs compete with academic demands:

I literally went to university at the wrong time with how much it currently costs. It’s impossible to concentrate on my studies without the constant fear of how am I going to eat tonight.

Another speaks of “black mould and damp” while their landlord’s sage advice is to “open a window.” Is this really the backdrop against which we expect student success to happen?

The data reveals a healthcare system fundamentally misaligned with student life realities. Only 65 per cent are registered with a GP where they study, just 17 per cent with a local dentist. And why should they bother? With 49 per cent expressing dissatisfaction with NHS services – “12 hours wait time at A&E is scandalous, people die waiting for ambulances, good luck getting an appointment” – the friction in accessing care hardly seems worth the effort. That we ask international students to pay for it is even more scandalous.

The answers lie partly in our addiction to departmental silos and short-term thinking. No Westminster department champions students as a distinct population with specific health needs deserving of targeted interventions. Universities focus on student retention while the NHS prioritises acute care – and students fall through the gap between.

The South African model of mandatory health modules covering mental, physical and sexual wellbeing offers an interesting approach – yet here we continue treating student health as an afterthought rather than a core educational function, something else that used to be developed in the gap between lectures that’s now filled with the demands of long commutes and punishing part-time work.

What might a solution look like? Perhaps it starts with recognising that today’s “horizontal generation” won’t respond to top-down health messaging. Their peer networks and digital platforms represent not just challenges but opportunities for intervention. Digital solutions that personalise support, peer-to-peer health models, and practical education around cooking and nutrition align with how today’s students actually engage with information. But there’s another critical factor – our lack of comprehensive national data on student health.

The current patchwork of institution-specific surveys and occasional national sampling is simply inadequate. How can we design effective interventions without a robust, longitudinal understanding of student health patterns? A dedicated national student health and wellbeing survey – tracking mental health, food insecurity, nutrition, sleep patterns, and their impact on academic outcomes – isn’t a luxury, it’s a fundamental prerequisite for evidence-based policy. Surely the NSS could take a year off every few years?

Then when it comes to delivery, the answer won’t be found in Whitehall but in our regions and cities. Manchester’s integrated approach to student mental health – where university health services, local NHS trusts, and city council public health teams collaborate on shared priorities – demonstrates what’s possible when student health is approached as a citywide asset rather than an institutional burden. It should both be broadened beyond mental health, and replicated.

And whatever is done really needs to be underpinned by rights – encompassing dual GP registration, affordable healthcare, timely disability diagnosis, health-supporting university policies, and integrated NHS partnerships.

The alternative is to continue watching talented students struggle unnecessarily, their potential diminished by preventable health challenges. A student eating so poorly they “can’t afford basic nutrition” or sleeping in accommodation where “mould grew on my campus room’s walls before I even came in” isn’t just experiencing personal discomfort, they’re living the consequences of policy failure – and paying for it, in more ways than one.

You can download the full deck of our findings from this Belong tranche on student health here.
Source link
April 28, 2025
$100m Coalition election promise to fund 200 regional medical students matches Labor – Campus Review

Regional and rural Australia’s doctor shortage is being targeted as an election issue by the Coalition, which is promising to fund an extra 200 students to train as general practitioners to work in the bush.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

April 28, 2025
Are You Meeting Students Where They Are?
As AI continues to weave its way into our lives, it’s no surprise that high school students are increasingly turning to these tools for college planning. However, our recent study, The AI Divide in College Planning: Students Adoption, Resistance, and Impact, conducted by RNL and TeenVoice, reveals that students aren’t all the same when it comes to AI. Some love it, some are curious but cautious, and some are unsure. Our study identified “Four Faces” of AI adoption among high school students, each with distinct characteristics:
1. AI Pioneers (33%): These tech-savvy students embrace AI with enthusiasm and trust its capabilities. Representing a significant portion of younger teens, they actively use AI in their college search.
2. AI Aspirers (33%): The largest group, they are curious but cautious, motivated by the practical benefits AI offers, especially in helping with making scholarship searches, career planning, and college research more efficient. They are prevalent among 15- and 16-year-old teens.
3. AI Fence Sitters (19%): Uncertain about AI’s role, they rely on traditional methods but are open to compelling evidence. This group, often older teens, requires more information and reassurance.
4. AI Resistors (9%): Preferring human interaction, they resist AI due to unfamiliarity. However, they are open to learning from trusted advisors like school counselors. This group is more common among Asian/Pacific Islanders and older teens, and in the West and Northeast.
Overall, the Pioneers and Aspirers tended to be the younger high school students, while those hesitant about using AI in the college planning were more likely to be from the 2025 incoming class. A key takeaway from this study is that if you are not already thinking about how to “wow” potential students with AI tools, you need to start. Similar to how admitted student portals evolved from a novelty to a necessity, intuitive AI tools for college planning will soon become a student expectation.

Read the full report

AI can deliver the 24/7 engagement that prospective students expect

Consider the potential of AI-powered chat tools or digital assistants that provide instant application status updates, personalized program recommendations, or streamlined scholarship searches. Students expect 24/7 accessibility and seamless navigation throughout the application process and their college experience. Or use AI to add personalized videos throughout your enrollment communication plan. AI can help you identify what is important to individual students and build video content that speaks directly to them like never before.

In addition, the research clearly shows students still rely on the people in their circle they trust the most—their family, high school guidance counselors, and friends. That’s not at risk of changing anytime soon. AI is an addition, not a replacement. It gives us another way to connect, becoming more important every day. However, as more students move into the AI Pioneer group, integrating AI becomes an essential part of your recruitment mix.

Understanding how students adopt AI will help you meet their expectations

Here’s the bottom line: AI isn’t some far-off idea anymore; its already changing what students expect from us. By understanding the “Four Faces of AI Adoption,” you can tailor your engagement strategies to meet students where they are. And embracing AI tools like digital assistants and personalized content creation will not only enhance your university’s appeal but also streamline the study journey and free up time for you to have more real conversations with them.

Are you ready to embrace the AI revolution in higher education? If you’re new to AI or seeking to enhance your understanding, RNL’s free online course, “AI Essentials for Higher Education Professionals,” is an excellent starting point. Equip yourself with the knowledge and skills needed to navigate this evolving landscape and ensure your institution remains at the forefront of student engagement. Start your AI education today!
Source link
April 27, 2025
AI Is Changing How Students Search: Will Your Website Show Up?
AI is no longer a distant disruption. It’s already influencing how prospective students and families search, navigate, and make decisions on higher education websites. As teams responsible for delivering seamless digital experiences, we need to understand the behavioral shifts underway and how to respond strategically.

Across the institutions we support, we’re seeing early but consistent signals: users expect smarter, faster, and more personalized interactions. These changes are subtle in some places and dramatic in others. But they’re accelerating.

How AI is changing search behavior

AI tools like Google’s Search Generative Experience (SGE), ChatGPT, and other large language models are changing how people expect to interact with information. According to a 2023 Pew Research study, 58% of U.S. adults are aware of ChatGPT, and younger audiences are among the most active users. Meanwhile, Google continues testing SGE, which presents AI-generated summaries above traditional search results.

Students are learning to type full, natural language questions — and they expect precise, context-aware responses in return. This behavior is now showing up in on-site search patterns.

Across higher ed websites, here are a few things we’re noticing:
- A rise in long-form, conversational search queries, especially within internal site search tools
- Increased use of search bars over menu navigation (particularly on mobile). A recent E-Expectations Trend report found that half of high school students use the site search to navigate a website.
- Across the higher ed websites we support, we see stronger performance on pages that are tailored to high-intent topics like cost, admissions, and outcomes. A recent analysis of over 200 higher ed sites found that 53% of engaged sessions come from organic search — highlighting the importance of content that’s built for both SEO and AI-driven discovery.
- Additionally, research indicates that 80% of high school juniors and seniors consider an institution’s website the most influential resource when exploring schools. This highlights the critical role of personalized and relevant content in engaging prospective students effectively.
- These findings emphasize the necessity for higher education institutions to develop and maintain website content that is specifically tailored to the needs and questions of their target audiences to enhance engagement and support enrollment goals.
- Parents and adult learners demonstrate similar behavior as they vet institutions with a clearer sense of goals and outcomes.
Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?

Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.

We still need to get the fundamentals right

It’s important to say: AI-driven search doesn’t eliminate the need for strong site structure. Navigation menus, clear page hierarchy, and thoughtful content design still matter — a lot. Most users move fluidly between browsing and searching. What’s changing is the expectation for speed, relevance, and control.

To meet this moment, higher ed websites should focus on:
- Modernizing internal search tools to move beyond keyword matching and support relevance-based or semantic search with tools like Vertex AI in full-site search tools or even program finders.
- Designing content around user intent, not just institutional priorities. Emphasize topics that students are searching for — like affordability, flexibility, and outcomes — rather than internal program structures or catalog-style descriptions.
- Making calls to action easy to find and easy to act on (especially for first-time visitors.) We help partners optimize for conversion with AB testing for placement, messaging, and functionality that best resonates with your audience.
- Better leveraging personalized and dynamic content to deliver tailored experiences based on user behavior, location, or stage in the journey. For instance, high-intent pages like “How to Apply” can be leveraged to serve personalized content blocks based on the visitor’s context. A returning user who previously viewed graduate programs might see a prompt to schedule a call with a graduate admissions counselor. A visitor browsing from New York in the evening hours could be shown a message about flexible online options for working professionals. These dynamic cues guide prospective students forward in their journey without overhauling the entire site.
Why this isn’t a one-time fix

This is not a single redesign or one-time upgrade. Optimizing your site for how people actually use it needs to be a continuous process.

This should include the following:
- Reviewing analytics and user behavior regularly
- Conducting search query audits to identify gaps
- A/B testing calls to action and user pathways
- Collecting both qualitative and quantitative research to understand different audience needs
Higher ed website performance is directly tied to enrollment growth. According to a 2024 survey conducted by UPCEA and Collegis Education to better understand the perspectives of post-baccalaureate students, 62% of respondents said not being able to easily find basic program information on the institution’s website would cause them to disengage.

The survey focuses on program preferences, delivery methods, and expectations during the inquiry and application processes and offered insights into how these preferences vary by age and degree level.

How to prepare for what’s next

To stay competitive and relevant, institutions need to invest in both smart search experiences and a streamlined digital journey. Here are some high-level recommendations:
1. Audit your internal search functionality. How are users searching your site, and are they getting the right results?
2. Map user journeys for key audiences. This includes traditional students, adult learners, and family decision-makers.
3. Evaluate AI integration options. Tools like Google’s Vertex AI or other semantic search platforms can enhance search accuracy and personalization.
4. Don’t overlook AEO (answer engine optimization). As AI-powered tools reshape how students discover and evaluate schools, it’s time to think beyond traditional SEO. AEO focuses on structuring content to directly answer the natural-language questions students now ask in tools like ChatGPT and Google’s SGE. We can help you begin integrating AEO into your strategy and content planning, so your institution stays visible in the next wave of search.
5. Treat optimization as ongoing. Staying competitive in the AI era requires continuous improvements grounded in data, user behavior, and evolving search trends. Ongoing commitment to this initiative is crucial.
Smarter web experiences start now

The future of higher ed websites isn’t just about making information accessible. It’s about making it findable, meaningful, and actionable – and being able to act fast and stay committed to this work.

Institutions that recognize how AI is already reshaping user expectations, and respond with thoughtful, strategic digital experiences, will meet today’s learners where they are and build trust for the long-term.

We’re paying close attention to these shifts and helping institutions make smart, scalable updates. If you’re rethinking how your website supports recruitment, engagement, or conversion, now is the right time to start. Collegis Education supports institutions with strategic marketing and web solutions designed to meet these evolving needs.

Let’s talk about how we can work together to future proof your web and digital experiences to best support enrollment growth for years to come.

See how your website stacks up — Contact us to request your AI Readiness Assessment.

Innovation Starts Here

Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.
Source link
April 25, 2025
This week in 5 numbers: 133 international students have legal status restored

We’re rounding up recent stories, from a legal victory for some noncitizen students to Harvard University's legal fight against the Trump administration.

Source link

April 25, 2025
A Blueprint for College Students’ Sense of Belonging

A Dr. Terrell L. Strayhornfew years ago, Liu (2023) published, “Everyone is Talking about ‘Belonging’” in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Her opening lines were perennial: “It’s everywhere. College t-shirts, notepads, and posters proclaim, “You Belong!” That was true then and it still rings true today. Indeed, belonging is proudly displayed on a larger-than-life sign at Kent State’s library. It’s part of wayfinding signage at University of Washington and LeMoyne-Owen College. It’s a button at William & Mary. A landing page for student-facing websites at University of Michigan and Amherst College, just to name a few. It’s a cabinet-level position at Belmont University, Harvard University, and University of Massachusetts Boston.

There can be no question that this reflects a growing infrastructure to support belonging for all faculty, staff, and students in higher education. Despite these shifts and scaling of efforts, “no one has perfected a blueprint for belonging,” Liu concluded. That’s likely because though everyone is talking about it, few seem to know what to do about it. This is the topic we took to task in “Fostering Healthier Campuses: Applying Sense of Belonging Theory to Student Affairs Research and Practice” at the recent annual meeting of NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

2025 NASPA CONFERENCE

NASPA brought together over 6,600 student affairs professionals from across the country to New Orleans, Louisiana for connection, reflection, and renewal, three anchors of this year’s theme. Being in “The Big Easy” is significant according to NASPA President and long-time student success champion, Dr. Amelia Parnell, who shared on LinkedIn: “I’ll tell anyone that student affairs professionals are some of the most thoughtful people in higher education and our time together in New Orleans confirmed it for me again.” The 5-day annual meeting consisted of keynote speakers, sponsored receptions, and dozens of educational sessions and programs. Interestingly, dozens of conference sessions, like ours, had “belonging” somewhere in the title, according to NASPA’s mobile app.

Likely a testament to the urgency of the moment and relevance of the message, our 50-minute session was standing-room only. Typical of what happens when we join forces, fueled by our commitment to a shared mission, we stood on business and spoke to everyone’s mind straight from the heart in ways that would renew many souls. At one point, Terrell exclaimed, “Belonging’s a feeling so it can’t be fabricated, faked, or funked. It must be built…but building it can’t break us!” Builders need blueprints and we offered one using belonging theory as a guide, detailing how to move from having good intentions to making systemic change, from talking about belonging to creating conditions for it where all students, faculty, and staff truly feel it, just the way they are.

Figure 1 is a visual representation of points shared in the session.

Figure 1. Sense of belonging model as a blueprint

BELONGING 1.0

Dozens of studies agree that sense of belonging is defined as “a basic…need [and human right], a fundamental motivation, sufficient to drive behaviors and perceptions. Its satisfaction leads to positive gains such as happiness, elation, wellbeing, achievement, and optimal functioning” (Strayhorn, 2019, p. 9). Belonging has seven core elements, one of which is it must be renewed continuously as conditions and circumstances change. For example, students may face new challenges that impact their sense of belonging at every stage of their academic journey. New challenges may require different supports that change semester to semester or year to year. Early on, students may need help navigating the physical terrain of campus, but, as seniors, they may desire coaching for career success. Any blueprint for belonging must consider these factors as part of the masterplan in design.

J’Quen JohnsonRECOMMENDATIONS: BELONGING 2.0 & BEYOND

During Q&A, a chorus of voices confirmed that many campus professionals are convinced about the importance of belonging and what it can do for students, even some faculty and staff. But what’s much less clear is how to facilitate, engender, or boost belonging for all students, using theory as a blueprint. To this, we etched a few recommendations for “promising practices” on the canvas of gathered minds. Here are three evidence-backed ideas that hold promise for boosting students’ belonging on college campuses:

Meeting Basic Needs. One building block for belonging is satisfying students’ basic needs: air, water, food, shelter, sleep, and personal enjoyment. When campuses take proactive steps to ensure that students have access to what they need, they open up possibilities for them to become who they are or aspire to be in terms of learning and development. Rutgers’ new, state-of-art Basic Needs Center is a prime example, offering extended operating hours, a mobile pantry, textbook loans, and life skills courses, just to name a few.

Designing Culturally Relevant Programs. Another building block for belonging is tied to how students’ identities shape their experiences on- and off-campus. College women are more prone to feeling unsafe and recent reports show rising rates of trans violence, especially in light of anti-LGBTQ+ laws. Feeling unsafe and unwanted off campus heightens students’ need for belonging on campus. Hosting trans awareness events, safe zone training, “Take Back the Night,” and “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes,” for instance, are effective strategies for creating inclusive campus climates. University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Educational Justice and Community Engagement hosts events like Women’s Community Love and Leadership Dinner, LGBTQ+ Career Conference, and Feminist Film Fridays.

Creating Positive Connections. A third building block for belonging is drawn from the middle of the blueprint–underscoring the importance of care, connectedness, and community. Community on campus flows from frequent, positive interactions with others, namely peers, faculty, and staff like advisors, coaches, and mentors. Architects of belonging pay attention to the quantity of students’ interactions with campus personnel, finding ways to nudge more frequent connections with academic advisors through micromessaging campaigns or faculty through first-year experience (FYE), undergraduate research, or “Take Your Professor to Lunch” initiatives. Alongside quantity, belonging builders assess the quality of such interactions to assure they’re warm, welcoming, and supportive.

CONCLUSION

If nothing else, we hope this provides higher education professionals a blueprint for boosting belonging on college campuses. It’s a blueprint, not the blueprint as what works best for Institution A may reap little for Institution B, and vice versa. Remember, belonging is a feeling. Just like bricks, feelings can be mixed and hardened over time. Changing people’s feelings is hard work, but that’s no excuse for retreat. Hard work is good work, and we must do good work. Anything less would be unbecoming and yes…unbelonging.

Dr. Terrell L. Strayhorn is Professor of Education and Psychology at Virginia Union University, where he also serves as Director of Research in the Center for the Study of HBCUs.

J’Quen Johnson is a research associate and consultant at Do Good Work Consulting Group and a Ph.D. candidate at University of the Cumberlands.

Source link

April 25, 2025