Tag: survey

  • First-Year Survey Data Prompts New Partnerships, Coms Strategy

    First-Year Survey Data Prompts New Partnerships, Coms Strategy

    Participation in extracurricular activities and campus events is tied to student retention, but a significant number of students don’t get plugged in. A 2024 survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 26 percent of respondents had never attended a campus event and 35 percent weren’t involved in activities outside the classroom.

    About three in 10 college students said they’d be more involved on campus if they were more aware of the available extracurricular opportunities. Staff at the University of Arizona recognized this awareness gap and, for the past decade, have surveyed incoming students to identify their interests and provide them with tailored resources.

    The New Student Information Form provides campus leaders with actionable data and information about the students joining the Wildcat community.

    Survey Says

    According to a 2024 survey of student success leaders by Inside Higher Ed and Hanover Research, 44 percent of respondents said their institution is highly effective at collecting data for student success and 40 percent said their college effectively uses student success data to inform decisions and initiatives. One-third of respondents said their institution has built a culture of data around student success.

    How it works: The University of Arizona first launched the NSIF in 2012 to understand student interests and their previous experiences with extracurricular activities in high school, said Jenny Nirh, director of collaboration, communications and outreach of student success at Arizona. In 2021, the form was revamped by the student success office with a focus on anticipated student resource needs and other personal information that could be relevant to academic success, such as caregiver status.

    In a typical year, between 85 and 90 percent of incoming first-year and transfer students complete the form, representing as many as 8,000 students, said senior analyst Laura Andrews, who is responsible for NSIF. In 2024, 6,500 first-year students responded to the NSIF, an 88 percent response rate.

    When asked where they wanted to get plugged in during their first year, two-thirds of respondents indicated they were interested in internships, while 58 percent selected student employment and the same share chose academic clubs.

    Over the past five years, staff have seen students report the same anticipated needs. In 2024, the greatest share of students said they expect to need at least some help accessing and managing financial aid (63 percent) and academic supports (56 percent).

    In addition to focusing on their interests, the survey asked students about their perceptions of college and the campus community. While a majority of respondents expressed excitement about being a student at Arizona, one in five indicated they were unsure about their ability to fit in and a similar number said they were uncertain whether their peers would assist them if they needed help.

    A question about caretaking responsibilities was added in 2023 to identify those students and connect them with childcare or caregiving resources available on campus, Nirh said.

    Data in action: Using NSIF data, staff have been able to respond to individuals’ needs and create strategic initiatives within various departments and offices that ensure no student is left behind. Now, the student success department tailors communications to students based on responses and promotes relevant support services.

    Each college at the university is given a breakdown of survey results for their incoming students, including their interests and expectations. The report is often distributed to department heads and faculty or used for student outreach purposes.

    Using data, staff found that Pell Grant recipients were more likely than the general campus population to say they wanted help navigating financial aid (19 percentage points higher) and student employment (12 percentage points higher). In addition, first-generation students were 10 percentage points more likely than the average student to say they needed support asking for help. The Thrive Center within the student success division uses this data in their first-generation support initiative, First Cats, and in their efforts to boost financial wellness.

    The Housing and Residence Life Division conducts an end-of-year survey of residents about their support needs and whether students sought help; staff received similar responses to those articulated by incoming students in the NSIF months earlier. However, students said they were less likely to seek help for their personal development—including mental health, time management and socialization—than for navigating campus life.

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link

  • The Wonkhe HE staff survey – how good is work in higher education?

    The Wonkhe HE staff survey – how good is work in higher education?

    As financial pressures continue to bear down on higher education institutions across the UK, there is a visible impact on higher education staff, as resources shrink, portfolios are rationalised, and redundancy programmes are implemented. These are definitively tough times for the sector and its people.

    One way this plays out is in the industrial relations landscape, with unions balloting for industrial action, as well as, on some specific issues, advancing joint work with employers.

    But there is a wider, arguably more nuanced, lens to bring to bear, about how the current circumstances are reshaping staff experiences of working in higher education, and what options are available to those with responsibility for leading and supporting higher education staff.

    When the Wonkhe team came up with the idea of running a national survey for higher education staff we knew from the outset that we would not be able to produce definitive statements about “the HE staff experience” derived from a representative sample of responses. There is no consensus over how you would define such a sample in any case.

    The best national dataset that exists is probably found in UCEA publications that combine institutional staff experience survey datasets at scale – one published in 2024 titled “What’s it really like to work in HE?” and one in May this year diving into some of the reported differences between academic and professional staff, “A tale of two perspectives: bridging the gap in HE EX.”

    Instead we wanted to, firstly, ask some of the questions that might not get asked in institutional staff surveys – things like, how staff feel about their institution’s capacity to handle change, or the relative importance of different potential motivating factors for working in HE, or, baldly, how institutional cost-cutting is affecting individuals. And secondly, as best we can, to draw out some insight that’s focused on supporting constructive conversations within institutions about sustaining the higher education community during challenging times.

    We’ll be reporting on three key areas:

    1. “Quality of work” – discussed further below
    2. Professional motivations, the relative importance of different motivators for our sample group, and the gap between the level of importance afforded key motivators and the extent to which respondents believe they actually get to experience these in their roles – DK has tackled that subject and you can read about his findings here
    3. Views on institutional change capability – coming soon!

    We’ve not covered absolutely everything in this tranche of reporting – partly because of time pressures, and partly because of format constraints. We have a fair bit of qualitative data to dive into, as well as the third area of investigation on institutional change capability all still to come – watch this space.

    The methodology and demographics bit

    We promoted the survey via our mailing list (around 60,000 subscribers) during July and August 2025, yielding a total of 4,757 responses. We asked a whole range of questions that we hoped could help us make meaningful comparisons within our sample – including on things like nationality, and type and location of institutions – but only some of those questions netted enough positive responses to allow us to compare two or more good-sized groups.

    Our working assumption is that if there was a group of around 500 or more who share a particular characteristic it is reasonable to compare their responses to the group of respondents who did not have that particular characteristic. We have conducted analysis of the following subgroups:

    • Career stage: Early career (n=686), mid career (n=1,304), and late career (n=2,703)
    • Those with an academic contract (n=1,110) and those with a non-academic contract (n=3,394) – excluding some other kinds of roles/contracts
    • Time in higher education: five years or fewer (n=908); 6-10 years (n=981); 11-20 years (n=1,517) and more than 20 years (n=1,333)
    • Working arrangements: on-site (n=988); working from home or remotely (n=475); and flexible/hybrid (n=3,268)
    • Leadership role: respondents who said they have formal management or leadership responsibility in their current role for projects, programmes, resources, or people (n=3,506), and those who did not (n=1,214)

    And we also looked at the following identity characteristics:

    • Gender: men (n=1,386) and women (n=3,271)
    • Sexuality: those who identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual or queer (n=654) and those who did not (n=4,093)
    • Ethnicity: those who identified as being of a minoritised ethnicity (n=247) and those who did not (n=4,444)
    • Disability: those who identified as being disabled (n=478) and those who did not (n=4,269)

    In one case – that of respondents who identified as being of a minoritised ethnicity – our sample didn’t meet the threshold for wholly robust analysis, but we found some differences in reported experience, which we think is worth reporting given what we already know about this group of staff, and would caution that these findings should be viewed as indicative rather than definitive.

    In some cases we have combined subgroups to make larger groups – for example we’ve grouped various academic roles together to compare with roles on other kinds of contracts. In others we’ve ignored some very small (usually n=3 and below) groups to make for a more readable chart; for this reason we don’t often show all responses. And although our response rates are high you don’t have to refine things much to get some pretty low numbers, so we’ve not looked at intersections between groups.

    We have reported where we found what we considered to be a meaningful difference in response – a minimum of four percentage points difference.

    The financial context

    88 per cent of respondents said their institution has taken material steps to reduce costs in the last 12 months, offering a background context for answers to the wider survey and the assurance that the thing we are looking at is definitely staff views against a backdrop of change.

    51.6 per cent said they personally had been negatively affected by cost reduction measures, while 41.9 per cent said the personal impact was neutral. This suggests that while cost reduction may be widely viewed as negative, that experience or the views that arise from it may not be universal.

    Of those that said they had been negatively affected we found no meaningful differences among our various comparator groups. Leaders and those later in their career, were as likely to report negative impacts as those without leadership responsibilities or earlier in their career, suggesting that there is little mileage in making assumptions about who is more likely to be negatively impacted – though of course we did not try to measure the scale of the impact, and we’re mindful we were talking to people who had not lost their jobs as a result of cost-saving measures.

    The one exception was between those on academic contracts, of whom nearly two third (65.3 per cent) reported negative impacts, and those on non-academic contracts, of whom the number reporting negative impact was closer to half (47.4 per cent). This difference gives important context for the wider findings, in which those on academic contracts are consistently more likely to offer a negative perspective than those on non-academic contracts across a range of questions. This tallies to some degree with the national picture explored in UCEA’s “Bridging the gap” report in which academics were more likely to report challenges with workload, work-life balance, and reward and recognition, than professional staff – though higher levels of work satisfaction.

    Regretting and recommending HE

    We asked whether, taking into account what is known about other available career paths, whether respondents feel that choosing to work in HE was the right decision for them – two thirds said yes (66.9 per cent) while 23.8 per cent were unsure. Only 9 per cent said no.

    Those approaching the end of their career were more likely to agree (74.3 per cent) compared to those mid-career (65 per cent) or early career (61.2 per cent). Those with leadership responsibilities were also slightly more likely to agree, at 68.2 per cent, compared to 62.3 per cent for those without leadership responsibilities.

    Those on academic contracts were slightly less likely to agree, at 60.8 per cent compared to 68.9 per cent for those on non-academic contracts.

    However, the real divide opens up when we looked at responses to our follow up question: whether respondents would recommend a career in higher education to someone they cared about who was seeking their advice. A much smaller proportion of our sample agreed they would recommend a career in HE (42.2 per cent), with much higher rates of “unsure” (32.1 per cent) and “no” (24.5 per cent) – most likely reflecting the impact of current challenges as compared to people’s longer-term lived experience.

    For the recommend question, the career-stage trend reverses, with those approaching the end of their careers less likely to say they would recommend a career in HE (39.2 per cent) compared to 41.6 per cent for those mid-career and 50.4 per cent for early career respondents.

    There was a substantial difference by role: only 25.7 per cent of those on academic contracts would recommend a career in HE, compared to 46.9 per cent of those on non-academic contracts.

    We did not find any differences by gender, ethnicity, disability, or sexuality on either confidence in the decision to work in HE or willingness to recommend it as a career.

    Quality of work

    One of the great things about higher education as an employment sector is that there are lots of ways to be employed in it and lots of different types of jobs. What one person values about their role might be quite different from what another person appreciates – and the same for the perceived downsides of any given role.

    So rather than trying to drill down into people’s reported experiences based on our own probably biased views about what “good work” looks and feels like, we turned to the idea of “quality of work” as a guiding framework to look at respondents’ experiences and perceptions. We asked 16 questions in total derived from this 2018 Carnegie UK-RSA initiative on measuring job quality in the UK which proposes seven distinct dimensions of work quality, including pay and conditions, safety and wellbeing, job design, social support, voice, and work-life balance.

    We also kept in mind that, while support, safety and wellbeing at work are foundational conditions for success, so is effective performance management and the opportunity to apply your skills. In the spirit of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs we clustered our questions broadly into four areas: safety, security, and pay/conditions; the balance between support and challenge; relationships with colleagues; and “self-actualisation” incorporating things like autonomy and meaningfulness.

    For each question, respondents were offered a choice of Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Strongly agree. Here we report overall levels of agreement (ie Agree and Strongly Agree)

    You can see the full findings for all our comparator groups in the visualisation below.

    [Full screen]

    Headlines on quality of work and interaction with willingness to recommend

    You can see all the workings out below where I’ve gone through the results line by line and reported all the variations we could see, but the TL;DR version is that the quality dimensions that jump out as being experienced comparatively positively are physical safety, good working relationships with colleagues, and meaningfulness of work. Two key areas that emerge as being experienced comparatively negatively are feeling the organisation takes your wellbeing seriously, and opportunities for progression – the level of agreement is startlingly low for the latter.

    We compared the various quality dimensions against whether people would recommend a career in higher education for the whole sample and found that across every question there was a direct correlation between a positive response and likelihood to recommend a career in HE – and the inverse for negative responses. We think that means we’re asking meaningful questions – though we’ve not been able to build a regression model to test which quality questions are making the largest contribution to the recommend question (which makes us sad).

    [Full screen]

    Going through the various comparator groups for the quality of work questions we find that there are three core “at risk” groups – one of which is respondents of a minorised ethnicity, which comes with caveats regarding sample size. Another is those on academic contracts, and the third is disabled respondents. These groups did not consistently respond more negatively to every question on quality of work, but we did find enough differentiation to make it worth raising a flag.

    So to try to see whether we could find some core drivers for these “at risk” groups, we plotted the response to the “recommend” question against the responses to the quality questions just for these groups. At this point the samples for disabled and minoritised ethnic responses become just too small to draw conclusions – for example, under 100 respondents who identified as being of a minoritised ethnicity said they would not recommend a career in HE.

    However, over 400 of those on academic contracts said they would not recommend a career in HE, so we compared the answers of that group to those of respondents on non-academic contracts who also would not recommend a career in HE (just shy of 700 respondents). Interestingly for a number of the quality questions there was no differentiation in response between the groups, but there was noticeable difference for “reasonable level of control over work-life balance”, “able to access support with my work when I need it”, and “opportunities to share my opinion” – in the sense that among the group that would not recommend HE the academic cohort were more likely to give negative responses to these questions, giving a modest indication of possible priority areas for intervention.

    We also found that those who had worked in higher education for five years or fewer were frequently more likely to report agreement with our various propositions about quality work. While there’s clearly some overlap with those early in their career they are not entirely the same group – some may have entered HE from other sectors or industries – though early career respondents do also seem to emerge as having a slightly more positive view as well, including on areas like emotional safety, and wellbeing.

    Safety, security and pay and conditions

    The four statements we proposed on this theme were:

    • I feel reasonably secure in my job
    • I am satisfied with the pay and any additional benefits I receive
    • I feel physically safe at work
    • I feel emotionally safe at work

    On job security, overall two thirds (66.3 per cent) of our sample agreed or strongly agreed that they feel reasonably secure in their job. Those on academic contracts reported lower levels of agreement (57.8 per cent). Those who said they had been employed in higher education for five years or fewer reported higher levels of agreement (71.4 per cent). Respondents who identified as disabled reported slightly lower levels of agreement (61.9 per cent).

    On satisfaction with pay, conditions and additional benefits, overall 63.8 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied. Those on academic contracts reported lower levels of agreement (56.3 per cent). Those who identified as having a minoritised ethnicity had the lowest levels of agreement of all our various comparators (53.1 per cent), and were twice as likely to strongly disagree that they were satisfied with pay and benefits than those from non-minoritised ethnicities (15.2 per cent compared to 7.9 per cent). Those who identified as disabled had lower levels of agreement (54.6 per cent agreement) compared to those who did not consider themselves disabled (64.9 per cent agreement)

    On physical safety, the vast majority of respondents (95.8 per cent) agreed or strongly agreed they feel physically safe at work with very little variation across our comparator groups. While the overall agreement was similar between men and women, notably men were more likely to register strong agreement (66.3 per cent) than women (51.9 per cent).

    On emotional safety the picture is more varied. Overall 72 per cent agreed or strongly agreed they feel emotionally safe at work. Those who reported being earlier in their career reported higher levels of agreement (78.6 per cent), as did those who reported having worked in the HE sector for five years or fewer (78.6 per cent). Those with academic contracts reported lower levels of agreement (61.62). Those who identified as having a minoritised ethnicity had lower levels of agreement (62.7 per cent) and were more than twice as likely to strongly disagree they feel emotionally safe at work than those who are not minoritised (14.2 per cent compared to 6.1 per cent).

    Balance, challenge, and performance

    The four statements we proposed on this theme were:

    • The work I do makes appropriate use of my skills and knowledge
    • I have a reasonable level of control over my work-life balance
    • My organisation demonstrates that it takes my wellbeing seriously
    • My organisation demonstrates that it takes my performance seriously

    On using skills and knowledge 79.2 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed that their work makes appropriate use of their skills and knowledge. There was very little variation between comparator groups – the one group that showed a modest difference was those who reported being disabled, whose agreement levels were slightly lower at 75.3 per cent.

    On control over work-life balance, 80.7 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed they have a “reasonable” level of control. Those who had worked in higher education for five years or fewer were more likely to agree (87.2 per cent). 86.5 per cent of those who work from home agreed, compared to 74.4 per cent of those who work on campus or onsite, and 81.7 per cent of those who have hybrid or flexible working arrangements. Those who reported having leadership responsibilities had lower levels of agreement (78.9 per cent) compared to those who did not (85.9 per cent).

    The biggest difference was between those on academic contracts (66 per cent agreement) and those on non-academic contracts (85.3 per cent agreement). There were also slightly lower scores for disabled respondents (74.7 per cent compared to 81.2 per cent for non-disabled respondents) and for minoritised ethnicities (76.6 per cent compared to 81 per cent for non-minoritised ethnicities).

    On wellbeing, 57.8 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed that their organisation demonstrates that it takes their wellbeing seriously. This was higher for early-career respondents – 60 per cent agreement compared to 57.9 per cent for those in mid-career, and 55.5 per cent for those approaching the end of their career. Agreement was higher for those with five years or fewer in higher education at 68.4 per cent agreement, compared with 54.5 per cent for those with more than 20 years’ experience.

    Those on academic contracts were substantially less likely to agree with only 39.7 per cent agreement that their organisation demonstrates that it takes their wellbeing seriously. Disabled respondents were also much less likely to agree than non-disabled respondents, at 47.7 per cent and 59 per cent respectively. Those working from home reported slightly lower levels of agreement, at 52.6 per cent.

    On performance, 63.1 per cent of our sample reported that their organisation demonstrates that it takes their performance seriously. This was slightly higher for those who had five years or fewer in higher education, at 69.6 per cent. Again, there was a difference between those on academic contracts with 57.8 per cent agreement and those on non-academic contracts, with 64 per cent agreement. Disabled respondents were slightly less likely to agree (58 per cent agreement) than non-disabled (63.8 per cent agreement).

    Relationships with colleagues

    The four statements we proposed on this theme were:

    • I am able to access support with my work when I need it
    • I am given sufficient opportunities to share my opinion on matters that affect my work
    • For the most part I have a good working relationship with my colleagues
    • I generally trust that the people who work here are doing the right things

    On accessing support, 76.2 per cent of our sample agreed they are able to access support when they need it. There was higher agreement among those early in their career at 81.3 per cent, and similarly among those who had worked five years or fewer in HE, at 82.8 per cent. There was lower agreement among those on academic contracts: 62.3 per cent agreement versus 80.5 per cent for those on non-academic contracts. Those from a minoritised ethnicity had lower agreement at 70.6 per cent, as did disabled respondents at 67.4 per cent.

    On opportunities to share opinion, 70.4 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed they were given sufficient opportunities to share their opinion on matters that affect their work. There was a small difference between those who held a leadership role and those who did not, at 71.9 per cent and 66 per cent agreement respectively. Again, those on academic contracts had lower levels of agreement, at 58.2 per cent compared to 73.9 per cent for those on non-academic contracts. Disabled staff also had lower agreement at 60.9 per cent.

    On working relationships, cheeringly, 96.1 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed they have good working relationships with their colleagues. While this held true overall across all our comparator groups regardless of leadership roles, working location, personal characteristics or any other factor, notably those of a minoritised ethnicity strongly agreed at a lower rate than those who did not identity as being from a minoritised ethnicity (39.6 per cent strong agreement compared to 48.3 per cent).

    On trust, 70.8 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed that they generally trust the people they work with are doing the right things. This was very slightly lower among those who work from home or remotely, at 65.9 per cent. Agreement was lower among those on an academic contract, at 61.6 per cent, compared to 73.4 per cent of those on a non-academic contract. Agreement was also lower among disabled respondents, at 63.8 per cent.

    “Self-actualisation”

    The four statements we proposed on this theme were:

    • My current job fits with my future career plans and aspirations
    • I am comfortable with the level of autonomy I have in my job
    • There are sufficient opportunities for progression from this job
    • The work I do in my job is meaningful

    On career plans, 76.1 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed that their current job fits with their future career plans and aspirations. Those who said they work from home or remotely had slightly lower levels of agreement at 69.3 per cent. Those who said they do not have any kind of leadership role had slightly lower levels of agreement at 69.4 per cent.

    On autonomy, 82.5 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed they were comfortable with the level of autonomy they have in their job. Those with an academic contract had very slightly lower levels of agreement at 77.9, compared to 83.8 per cent agreement among those on non-academic contracts. Those of a minoritised ethnicity had lower levels of agreement at 73.9 per cent, as did disabled respondents, at 75.9 per cent agreement.

    On progression, a startling 29.5 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that there are sufficient opportunities for progression from their current position. There was a modest difference between those with leadership roles, 31.1 per cent of whom agreed, compared to 25 per cent of those without a leadership role. Those on academic contracts had higher levels of agreement at 38.5 per cent, compared to 26.8 per cent of those on non-academic contracts.

    On meaningful work, 86.1 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed that the work they do in their job is meaningful. Those who work from home or remotely had very slightly lower levels of agreement at 77.9 per cent but otherwise this held true across all our comparator groups.

    Aspiration to lead and preparedness to lead

    We asked about whether respondents aspire to take on or further develop a leadership role in higher education, and if so, whether they are confident they know what a path to leadership in higher education involves in terms of support and professional development. These questions are particularly relevant given the generally negative view about opportunities to progress held by our survey respondents.

    [Full screen]

    Overall, 44.5 per cent of our sample said they aspire to take on or further develop a leadership role. Curiously, this was only slightly higher for those who already have some level of leadership responsibility, at 48.3 per cent. This can be explained to some degree by differentiation by career stage: 58.8 per cent of early career respondents aspired to take on or develop leadership roles, as did 50.9 per cent of mid-career respondents.

    Aspiration to lead was higher among those identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual at 52.6 per cent compared to 43.2 per cent for those who did not. Aspirations were also higher among respondents of a minoritised ethnicity, at 54.5 per cent, compared to 43.8 per cent among those not of a minoritised ethnicity.

    We also asked respondents whether they are confident they know what a path to leadership involves in terms of support and professional development, where we found some important variations. Confidence about pathways to leadership was lower among early career respondents, at 22.8 per cent agreement, and even mid-career respondents confidence was lower than the numbers reporting they aspire to leadership, at 36.6 per cent.

    While there was no difference in aspiration between respondents on academic contracts and those on non-academic contracts, those on academic contracts were more likely to say they are confident they know what a path to leadership involves, at 50.3 per cent compared to 34.8 per cent.

    While there was no difference in aspiration between men and women respondents, women were slightly less likely than men to report confidence in knowing about the path to leadership, at 37.5 per cent compared to 42 per cent. Those who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual, those of a minoritised ethnicity, and disabled respondents were also slightly less likely than their comparator groups to express confidence, despite having expressed aspiration to lead at a higher rate.

    These findings around demographic difference suggest that there remains some work to be done to make leadership pathways visible and inclusive to all.

    We’ll be picking up the conversation about sustaining higher education community during tough times at The Festival of Higher Education in November. It’s not too late to get your ticket – find out more here.

    Source link

  • Survey: Undergraduates on Academic Quality

    Survey: Undergraduates on Academic Quality

    Eight in 10 students rate the quality of education they’re getting as good or excellent, according to the first round of results from Inside Higher Ed’s main annual Student Voice survey of more than 5,000 two- and four-year undergraduates with Generation Lab. That’s up from closer to seven in 10 students in last year’s main Student Voice survey, results that are affirming for higher education at a turbulent economic, technological and political moment.

    Still, students point to room for improvement when it comes to their classroom experience—and flag outside issues that are impacting their academic success. Case in point: 42 percent of all students, and 50 percent of first-generation students, cite financial constraints as a top barrier to their success. This can include tuition but also living and other indirect expenses. Balancing outside work with coursework and mental health issues are other commonly cited challenges. Taken as a whole, the findings underscore the need for comprehensive wraparound supports and a focus on high-touch approaches in an ever more high-tech world.

    About the Survey

    Student Voice is an ongoing survey and reporting series that seeks to elevate the student perspective in institutional student success efforts and in broader conversations about college.

    Look out for future reporting on the main annual survey of our 2025–26 Student cycle, Student Voice: Amplified. Future reports will cover cost of attendance, health and wellness, college involvement, career readiness, and the relationship of all those to students’ sense of success. And check out what students have already said about trust—including its relationship to affordability—and about how artificial intelligence is reshaping the college experience.

    Some 5,065 students from 260 two- and four-year institutions, public and private nonprofit, responded to this main annual survey about student success, conducted in August. Explore the data from the academic life portion of the survey, captured by our survey partner Generation Lab, here. The margin of error is plus or minus 1 percentage point.

    Here’s more on what respondents to our main annual Student Voice survey had to say about academic success.

    1. Students across institution types rate their educational experience highly.

    Some 80 percent of students rate the quality of their college education thus far as good (50 percent) or excellent (30 percent), compared to last year’s 73 percent of students who rated it good (46 percent) or excellent (27 percent). This is relatively consistent across student characteristics and institution types—though, like last year, private nonprofit institutions have a slight edge over public ones, especially in terms of perceived excellence: In 2025, 47 percent of private nonprofit students rate their education excellent versus 27 percent of public institution students. This can’t be explained by two-year institutions being included in the public category, as community college students are slightly more likely than four-year students to describe their education as excellent (32 percent versus 29 percent, respectively). On community college excellence, one recent analysis by the Burning Glass Institute found that two-year institutions have dramatically improved their completion rates in recent years due in part to a concerted student success effort.

    What about four-year college excellence? The Student Voice survey didn’t define quality specifically, but existing data (including prior Student Voice data) shows that students value connections with faculty. And with private nonprofit institutions having lower average faculty-to-student ratios than publics, one possible explanation is that students at private nonprofits may have extra opportunities to connect with their professors. But as other recent analyses demonstrate, private nonprofit institutions, even highly selective ones, do not have a monopoly on delivering life-changing educational experiences for students. Nearly 500 institutions—including community colleges, public universities, religious colleges and specialized colleges—this year achieved a new “opportunity” designation from the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, for example, signifying both high levels of access and strong economic outcomes for students.

    2. Students want fewer high-stakes exams and more relevant course content, indicating this would boost their academic success.

    Like last year’s survey, the top classroom-based action that students say would boost their academic success is faculty members limiting high-stakes exams, such as those counting for 40 percent or more of a course grade: 45 percent of students say this would help. Also like last year, the No. 2 action from a longer list of options is professors better connecting what they teach in class to issues outside of class and/or students’ career interests (40 percent). In Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Chief Academic Officers, just 20 percent of provosts said their institution has encouraged faulty members to limit high-stakes exams. But artificial intelligence is forcing a broader campus-assessment reckoning—and how to engage students and authentically assess their learning are questions central to those ongoing conversations. Relatedly, 10 percent of Student Voice respondents say promoting AI literacy would most boost their academic success.

    3. Most students know how and when to use AI for coursework, but there are knowledge gaps between groups.

    Upward of eight in 10 students indicate they know how, when and whether to use generative AI for help with coursework. In 2024’s survey, the plurality of students said this was because their professors had addressed the issue in class. This year, the plurality (41 percent) attributes this knowledge to professors including policies in their syllabi (up from 29 percent last year).

    Like last year, relatively few students credit a college- or universitywide policy or other information or training from the broader institution. Across higher education, many institutions have held off on adopting broad AI use policies, instead deferring to faculty autonomy and expertise: Just 14 percent of provosts in Inside Higher Ed’s survey said their institution has adopted comprehensive AI governance policies and/or an AI strategy—though more said it has adopted specific policies for academic integrity, teaching and/or research (45 percent).

    While classroom-based approaches are clearly evolving, two-year Student Voice respondents report being unclear on how, when and whether to use AI for coursework at double the rate of four-year peers (20 percent versus 10 percent). Perhaps relatedly, community college provosts were most likely to report significant faculty resistance to AI on their campuses, by institution type, at 49 percent versus 38 percent over all. Another difference: 23 percent of adult learners (25 and older) report being unclear, compared to just 10 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds. Both of these gaps merit further research.

    4. Students say their institution’s course delivery methods and scheduling fit their needs—with some caveats.

    Asked to what extent their institution offers course delivery methods/modalities that meet their learning needs and schedules, about four in 10 students each say very well or somewhat well. Adult learners (50 percent), community college students (49 percent) and students working 30 or more hours per week (45 percent) are especially likely to say their college is meeting their needs here very well—evidence that many nontraditional learners are finding the flexibility they need to balance college with busy lives.

    However, students who say they’ve seriously considered stopping out of college at some point are especially unlikely to say their college is serving them very well here (33 percent). Risk factors for stopping out are varied and complex. But this may be one more reason for institutions to prioritize flexible course options. On the other hand, 48 percent of students who have stopped out for a semester or more but then re-enrolled say they’re being very well served by their current institution in this way.

    5. Students’ biggest reported barriers to academic success aren’t academic.

    From a long list of possible challenges, students are most likely to say that financial constraints (such as tuition and living expenses), needing to work while attending college, and mental health issues are impeding their academic success. None of these is explicitly academic, underscoring the need for holistic supports in student success efforts. Adult learners (51 percent), students working 30 hours or more per week (52 percent), first-generation students (50 percent) and students who have previously stopped out of college (55 percent) all report financial constraints at elevated rates. Racial differences emerge, as well: Black (46 percent) and Hispanic (49 percent) students are more likely to flag financial constraints as a barrier to academic success than their white (38 percent) and Asian American and Pacific Islander (37 percent) peers.

    On mental health, women (37 percent) and nonbinary students (64 percent, n=209) flag this as a barrier at higher rates than men (26 percent). Same for students who have seriously considered stopping out of college relative to those who have not: 41 percent versus 30 percent, respectively.

    Some of these issues are interconnected, as well: Other research has found a relationship between basic needs insecurity and mental health challenges that is pronounced among specific student populations, including first-generation and LGBTQIA+ students. Another recent study by the National College Attainment Network found that a majority of two- and four-year colleges cost more than the average student can pay, sometimes by as much as $8,000 a year. And prior Student Voice surveys have found that students link affordability to both their academic performance and to trust in higher education.

    6. Colleges are meeting students’ expectations for responding to changing needs and circumstances—with some exceptions.

    With so many different factors influencing students’ academic success, how are colleges doing when it comes to responding to students’ needs and changing circumstances, such as with deadline extensions, crisis support and work or family accommodations? Seven in 10 students say their college or university is meeting (57 percent) or exceeding (12 percent) their expectations. Most of the remainder say their institution is falling slightly short of expectations. This is relatively consistent across student groups and institution types—though students who have seriously considered stopping out of college are more likely than those who haven’t to say their institution is falling at least slightly short of their expectations (33 percent versus 19 percent, respectively). This again underscores the importance of comprehensive student support systems.

    The Connection Factor

    While it’s clear that AI and other outside variables are reshaping the academic experience, one mitigating influence may be human connection.

    Jack Baretz, a senior studying math and data science at the University of North Dakota, is currently working with peers to develop an AI-powered tool called Kned that can answer students’ and advisers’ basic academic advising questions (think course sequencing, availability and prerequisites). The idea isn’t to replace advisers but rather counteract high adviser caseloads and turnover and—most importantly—maximize students’ time with their adviser so it’s a meaningful interaction.

    “There’s a lot of anxiety kids have at this point in their life, where it’s like, ‘I don’t know what I’m going to do next. What would be a good major to make sure I get a job? I don’t want to be jobless.’ Just those conversations—I think that’s where advisers are most effective and probably most content, helping people,” Baretz said.

    Three light-skinned young men, two wearing T-shirts and one in a hooded sweatshirt

    From left: University of North Dakota students and advising chatbot collaborators Michael Gross, Owen Reilly and Jack Baretz.

    Zoom

    A prior Student Voice survey found that nearly half of students lack key academic guidance. In this year’s survey, 19 percent of students say channeling more resources to academic advising so they can get more help from their adviser would most boost their academic success. Some 28 percent say the same of new and/or clearer program maps and pathways.

    This ethos extends to what Kned collaborator Michael Gross, a junior majoring in finance, said keeps him academically engaged: connection. His most motivating online classes, for example, have had breakout rooms for peer-to-peer discussions. Why? “When you have more than one person working on something, you’re way more likely to contribute and do your best work on it, because there’s other people’s grades at stake, too,” he said. “It’s not just yours.”

    Gross added, “One thing I would say is for institutions to encourage discussion on college campuses. The main thing that we’re kind of losing, especially with all this technology, is people are becoming so separated from each other. College is meant to be a place where you can engage your social skills and just learn about other people—because this is one of the last times you can be surrounded by so many people your age, and so many people from different walks of life with so many different ideas, too.”

    To this point, 19 percent of Student Voice respondents cite social isolation or lack of belonging as a top barrier to their academic success. Tyton Partners’ 2025 “Time for Class” report also found a jump in both instructor and student preference for face-to-classes, “showing renewed demand for classroom connection.” In the same report, nearly half of instructors cited academic anxiety as a top concern among students, and students themselves reported low motivation and weak study habits as persistent barriers to learning.

    Terry McGlynn, professor of biology at California State University, Dominguez Hills, and author The Chicago Guide to College Science Teaching, agreed that “learning is inherently a social endeavor.” And educators have for the past five years noticed “it’s a lot harder to get students to interact with one another and to show some vulnerability when experiencing intellectual growth.”

    Many have attributed this to the effects of the pandemic, McGlynn said. But if higher education is now “heading into this era of AI in the classroom without reintegrating quality social interactions, I’m worried for us.”

    He added, “I hope we develop approaches that bring people together rather than providing expectations that we work in isolation from one another.”

    This independent editorial project is produced with the Generation Lab and supported by the Gates Foundation.

    Source link

  • US takes the lead on student satisfaction, survey finds

    US takes the lead on student satisfaction, survey finds

    Global student satisfaction has remained steady in 2025, but pressures on inclusivity, affordability and the quality of student life are beginning to show, according to the Global Student Satisfaction Awards: Summary Report 2025.

    Studyportals’ 2025 Student Satisfaction survey tracked responses from over 102,000 students around the world, with the US, Belgium and Austria leading the charge in overall satisfaction, ranked at 4.32, 4.29 and 4.28 stars out of five respectively.

    The biannual survey looked at reviews from students of 180 nationalities studying at institutions in 124 countries, recording an average satisfaction score of 4.18 out of 5. While stable compared to 2023 (when the last survey was published), this represents a slight dip of 0.71%.

    Meanwhile Pakistan, France, Ireland and Türkiye saw some of the steepest declines in satisfaction. The UK and India bucked the trend with improved scores, both climbing above the global average.

    Pakistan recorded the most significant drop since 2023’s survey (-11.3%), moving significantly further below the global benchmark. France also fell by -3.2%, Ireland by -2.4%, and Türkiye by -1.2%.

    By contrast, Finland (+3.3%) and the Netherlands (+0.2%) registered modest improvements, though both remain below the global average. The report warns that unless these downward trends are addressed, strong challengers like India and the UK could capture greater student interest.

    Students are more confident about career prospects, but increasingly concerned about diversity and their quality of life
    Edwin van Rest, Studyportals

    The report also tracked other factors such as admissions processes, career development, student diversity and student life.

    Winners were honoured across seven categories at an awards ceremony hosted by Studyportals in collaboration with Uni-Life and IELTS at a fringe event during last week’s European Association for International Education (EAIE) conference in Gothenburg.

    Key indicators revealed a mixed picture. Student diversity (-5.03%) and student life (-4.39%) suffered the largest declines, reflecting growing concerns around integration, housing shortages and rising costs in popular destinations. Admissions processes also weakened (-3.85%), with students calling for clearer communication, smoother transitions and more user-friendly digital systems.

    On the positive side, career development (+1.23%) recorded notable gains, with the US, India and Switzerland leading thanks to stronger links with employers, internships and industry engagement. Online classroom experience, long the weakest category, also improved modestly (+1.30%), particularly in the US, India and South Africa.

    Studyportals said the findings underline shifting student priorities. Employability outcomes and structured cross-cultural experiences are increasingly valued, while inclusivity and transparency remain pressing challenges.

    “These results show where universities are winning student trust, and where they risk losing it,” noted Edwin van Rest, CEO & co-founder of Studyportals. “Students are more confident about career prospects, but increasingly concerned about diversity and their quality of life.”

    Source link

  • Student Affairs Staff Face Widespread Racism, Survey Finds

    Student Affairs Staff Face Widespread Racism, Survey Finds

    Nearly 60% of student affairs professionals witnessed racism on their campuses in the past year, with one-third experiencing it directly, according to a new national study that exposes significant racial disparities in workplace conditions across higher education.

    Dr. Royel M. JohnsonThe report, released by the USC Race and Equity Center, analyzed responses from 1,992 student affairs professionals at 73 colleges and universities who participated in the National Assessment of Collegiate Campus Climates Staff Survey between 2021-2023.

    “When we look at over 2000 student affairs professionals across 73 institutions, we often see that student affairs professionals are really the backbone of our campuses, who are the first line of defense in supporting students and responsible for creating the conditions of belonging,” said Dr. Royal Johnson, a professor in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California and director of the National Assessment of Collegiate Campus Climates in the USC Race and Equity Center. “But the same sort of realities that students are facing of race and discrimination, student affairs professionals are also being plagued with those same challenges.”

    Black student affairs professionals reported the highest rates of direct racist experiences at 61%, followed by Asian (46%) and multiracial staff (46%). In contrast, only 17% of white professionals reported experiencing racism personally.

    “Student affairs professionals are expected to champion equity and care for students, yet they often labor in environments that fall short of those same principles,” the researchers wrote.

    In an interview with Diverse, Johnson noted that upwards of 60% of those surveyed reported experiencing racism and the lingering consequences, “whether it be the emotional toll and frustration associated with it, the distrust that emanates from it, their sense of mattering,” he added. 

    The perpetrators of racism came primarily from within institutions themselves. White staff members were the most common source of racist behavior (27% of respondents reported experiencing racism from white colleagues), followed by white students (22%) and white faculty (21%). Additionally, 22% experienced racism from external contacts such as vendors and community partners.

    The emotional toll proved significant, with 72% of respondents reporting feelings of frustration and 50% experiencing anger as a result of racist incidents. More than a quarter (27%) said the experiences led to declines in mental health and emotional well-being.

    Confidence in institutional commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion varied sharply by race. While half of white staff expressed strong confidence in their institution’s DEI commitment, only 30% of Black staff and 35% of Asian staff shared that view.

    The workplace climate issues extended beyond racist incidents to broader patterns of exclusion and inequality. Less than half of all respondents felt they mattered at their institution, with Asian (33%) and Black (38%) professionals reporting the lowest rates of feeling valued.

    Staff of color also reported significant barriers to advancement. Among Black professionals, 34% disagreed that they received equal opportunities for advancement compared to colleagues, while 32% of Hispanic/Latinx staff reported similar concerns. One in ten Black professionals said their perspectives were not valued at all in workplace decision-making processes.

    “We know that staff of color have long struggled with equitable professional mobility kind of opportunities, or feel relegated to lower level, lower status kinds of roles,” Johnson explained, adding that the study represents “one of the more larger scale analysis that’s national in scope, that’s offering behind the scenes if you will, of the kind of racial realities that folks are experiencing.”

    The study revealed gaps in institutional support systems as well. While 70% of staff of color and 81% of white staff learned about race through self-directed efforts, only about half received formal professional development from their institutions on racial topics.

    During the survey period, which coincided with national discussions about anti-Asian hate crimes and police brutality against Black Americans, less than half of institutions addressed these issues. Only 42% of respondents said their leaders addressed anti-Asian hate crimes, while 50% said leaders addressed police brutality and racially motivated violence against Black people.

    The findings come as student affairs faces broader retention challenges, with 39% of staff indicating they are likely to seek other employment within the next year, according to separate research by the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources.

    The USC researchers offered seven recommendations for institutional action, including strengthening reporting mechanisms, embedding equity goals in staff evaluations, regularly assessing campus climate with disaggregated data, and ensuring transparent advancement pathways.

    “Addressing racism in the workplace is not about individual resilience—it is about institutional responsibility,” the researchers concluded. “Without bold, sustained, and collective action, campuses risk losing the very professionals who are central to advancing their diversity and student success missions.”

    The study’s sample included professionals from 28 two-year and 45 four-year institutions. The demographic breakdown was 54% white, 18% Hispanic/Latinx, 12% Black, 5% Asian, and 7% biracial or multiracial staff members.

    Source link

  • Half of college students say their mental health is ‘fair’ to ‘terrible,’ survey finds

    Half of college students say their mental health is ‘fair’ to ‘terrible,’ survey finds

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

    Half of college students rate their mental health as fair, poor, or terrible, according to a recent survey from The Steve Fund, a nonprofit that focused on the mental health of young people of color.

    The survey also found about 40% of students were “very or extremely stressed about maintaining their mental health” while in college. About 1 in 5 students said the same about connecting with other students and finding their niche in college.

    Moreover, about one-third or more of students experienced a range of challenges such as changes in sleeping habits and difficulty concentrating and learning.

    Students struggling with mental health in college isn’t a new phenomena, but “the severity and pervasiveness have clearly worsened,” Annelle Primm, The Steve Fund’s senior medical director, said in an email.

    “We’re not just seeing higher levels of stress — we’re seeing a rising sense of disconnection,” said Primm. “The need for campuses to respond thoughtfully and urgently is more pressing than ever.”

    The mental health issues students face may also impact their graduation trajectory. About half of students considered reducing their classload, 40% considered transferring, and 30% considered dropping out of college altogether due to “negative experiences on campus,” the report stated.

    Steve Fund researchers surveyed about 2,050 college students between ages 18 and 24 who were attending four-year institutions and largely taking in-person classes.The survey was conducted last year between February and April.

    There isn’t a single cause behind the mental health challenges that students are facing, but “several powerful stressors are converging,” said Primm. That includes discrimination on campus, encounters with campus security or a lack of belonging, according to the report.

    Many college students also grew into adulthood during the COVID-19 pandemic, a uniquely disruptive period that had significant impacts on emotional development and social connection, Primm said. Some of those students struggled with isolation caused by remote learning, while others had limited opportunities to meaningfully interact with their peers during their formative years, she said.

    “Layered on top of this are longstanding financial pressures like student loan debt, and broader societal stressors — from political divisiveness to global conflict,” said Primm. 

    Racial differences

    Negative experiences on campus — which were more prevalent among students of color — impacted mental health, the report found.

    About half of Black and Indigenous students reported having a negative experience with cyberbullying on campus, the highest of any racial groups, the report stated. And a higher percentage of students of color reported threats of physical violence on campus and being stopped by campus police and security than their White peers.

    About 60% of Black and Asian students and nearly half of Hispanic students reported negative racial comments on campus, and similar shares said the same about facing different forms of discrimination, the report stated. That’s higher than the 43% of White students who experienced discrimination and 29% who experienced racial comments.

    Among all students, two-thirds pointed to other students as their source of their negative experiences on campus, while 20% identified faculty, the report stated. 

    More than 4 in 5 students also said their institution “helps students from various racial and ethnic backgrounds feel welcome.”

    But Black, Hispanic, and Asian students reported their campus climate as inclusive at lower rates than White students. And about half of Black and Indigenous students said they experienced difficulty being themselves in college.

    Encouraging progress

    Colleges may be making strides in providing better mental health resources to students, the survey suggested.

    Student access to and awareness of college mental health services improved significantly since 2017, when the Steve Fund last surveyed college students about their mental health. That survey drew responses from 1,056 college students between ages 17 and 27 attending both two- and four-year colleges.

    Primm said the two surveys can be considered comparable, as the majority of students who completed the 2017 survey were also attending four-year colleges.

    Source link

  • Survey Shows High Graduation and Employment Rates

    Survey Shows High Graduation and Employment Rates

    College Possible’s latest alumni survey shows strong outcomes for participants in its coaching program, including a 93 percent five-year graduation rate for those who attended a four-year college and high rates of employment and job satisfaction.

    According to the report, which is based on a survey of 1,300 of the college access nonprofit’s more than 100,000 graduates, 95 percent are employed, 83 percent are employed full-time and more than four in five respondents said they felt fulfilled by their jobs.

    The salaries of College Possible graduates are also high, with half reporting salaries over $60,000. The median salary for those working in STEM fields is $101,650, while those in non-STEM careers made a median income of $46,680. Sixty-eight percent of respondents indicated they feel at least somewhat financially secure.

    The report also highlights that most of College Possible’s graduates say they benefited significantly from the coaching program, with nine in 10 saying they would recommend College Possible to others and 17 percent returning to coach other students or work for the organization in another capacity.

    Source link

  • Survey on Upcoming Immigration Rules

    Survey on Upcoming Immigration Rules

    IFP Survey on Upcoming Immigration Rules Affecting H-1B, F-1, J-1 and OPT

    The Institute for Progress (IFP) is conducting an H-1B employer survey with economist Michael Clemens (George Mason University/Peterson Institute). We know this topic is of significant interest for many CUPA-HR leaders and encourage you to forward this link to those with information needed to complete the survey.

    The survey is designed to document how upcoming immigration rulemakings could affect universities and other employers, including proposals to:

    • eliminate “duration of status” admissions for F-1 and J-1 visa holders,
    • institute a weighted lottery for H-1B petitions,
    • rescind Optional Practical Training (OPT), and
    • revise required wage levels for H-1B filings.

    Two of these proposals — ending duration of status for F-1/J-1 holders and creating a weighted H-1B lottery — have already cleared the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) review and could be published imminently; the others are anticipated.

    By generating a strong university response, IFP and its partners (including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Immigration Lawyers Association) aim to provide data showing the costs and negative impacts of these rules. The survey closes September 8, 2025, though the deadline may be extended depending on the federal comment period.

    You can preview the survey questions before completing the survey.


    Complete the Survey by September 8

    Source link

  • IFP Survey on Upcoming Immigration Rules

    IFP Survey on Upcoming Immigration Rules

    IFP Survey on Upcoming Immigration Rules Affecting H-1B, F-1, J-1 and OPT

    The Institute for Progress (IFP) is conducting an H-1B employer survey with economist Michael Clemens (George Mason University/Peterson Institute). We know this topic is of significant interest for many CUPA-HR leaders and encourage you to forward this link to those with information needed to complete the survey.

    The survey is designed to document how upcoming immigration rulemakings could affect universities and other employers, including proposals to:

    • eliminate “duration of status” admissions for F-1 and J-1 visa holders,
    • institute a weighted lottery for H-1B petitions,
    • rescind Optional Practical Training (OPT), and
    • revise required wage levels for H-1B filings.

    Two of these proposals — ending duration of status for F-1/J-1 holders and creating a weighted H-1B lottery — have already cleared the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) review and could be published imminently; the others are anticipated.

    By generating a strong university response, IFP and its partners (including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Immigration Lawyers Association) aim to provide data showing the costs and negative impacts of these rules. The survey closes September 8, 2025, though the deadline may be extended depending on the federal comment period.

    You can preview the survey questions before completing the survey.


    Complete the Survey by September 8

    Source link

  • Survey Explores How Colleges Rate Their Value Versus Cost

    Survey Explores How Colleges Rate Their Value Versus Cost

    Growing public skepticism in higher education has fueled a number of polls and surveys aimed at understanding how families, students and taxpayers perceive the value of a college degree.

    For instance, a majority of Americans believe at least one type of postsecondary credential holds value, according to a 2025 study by Gallup, and most parents want their kids to attend college. But few of those studies have looked at how colleges and universities see themselves improving students’ lives.

    A new survey by Tyton Partners released Thursday found three in four college stakeholders strongly believe their institution’s education is worth the cost of tuition. However, two-year institutions were more likely to say this is true, compared to private universities.

    Only 28 percent of administrators and support staff working at private four-year institutions strongly agree that their institution’s education is worth the cost, compared to 68 percent of community colleges. The survey, fielded in late June and early July, includes responses from more than 1,600 stakeholders at 825 institutions.

    The sector breakdown wasn’t a surprise to Catherine Shaw, Tyton’s managing director, in part because of how the vocational missions of two-year colleges to prepare the local workforce compare to four-year private institutions that focus more on holistic student development.

    “That part of it was so squarely within the value proposition of the reasons we have two-year degrees,” Shaw said.

    For students, there’s a direct relationship between those who say their college is worth the cost and those who think the college prepares students well for jobs and careers. Among the 792 student respondents who do believe their college is worth the cost, 95 percent believe college is preparing them well for jobs and careers. Inversely, fewer than half (48 percent) of students who don’t see the value of their degree believe college is preparing them well for a career.

    “In short, perceptions of value hinge on whether institutions effectively prepare students for the workforce,” the report states. This was true regardless of an institution’s sector, size, selectivity or demographic makeup.

    This was the first time Tyton’s survey has asked respondents about perceived value, which Shaw said was in part because of larger national studies gauging perceived value among individuals in the U.S.

    “It was interesting that there wasn’t the institutional perspective captured at scale [in previous surveys],” Shaw said. “We wanted to contextualize [the conversation] and see if our institutional stakeholders and our students are asking themselves the same questions and how they feel relevant, because they’ve got skin in the game.”

    What Creates Value

    More than a quarter of all institutions pointed to career readiness as a top college outcome beyond earning a credential, but two-year colleges were most likely to say this was the top outcome (37 percent). In comparison, the most popular outcome among four-year public and private institutions was critical thinking skills (41 percent and 36 percent, respectively).

    Faculty members were most likely to say critical thinking skills were a top college outcome, which Shaw said makes sense given their role in higher education. Administrators and advisers were more likely to point to career readiness as a top outcome for students.

    Tyton’s survey also asked administrators, support staff and faculty members which support services improve students’ value of education. Academic and career advising rose to the top, with over half of respondents in all roles ranking these services higher than tutoring, financial aid counseling or mental health counseling.

    How institutions deliver high-impact career preparation varied based on institution type. Thirty-eight percent of community colleges said apprenticeships were the most meaningful measures to improve student employment metrics, followed by career pathways at 35 percent.

    In comparison, embedded career exploration ranked highest among four-year institutions (54 percent of public universities, 50 percent of private) as did guaranteed internships for all students (31 percent of four-year public institutions) and experiential learning coursework (33 percent of four-year privates).

    Student awareness of these opportunities is the greatest barrier to career readiness, according to career services professionals (45 percent), followed by limited capacity (17 percent) and a lack of consistent programming throughout the year (13 percent). Fewer than half of surveyed students (42 percent) said they were aware of career services available to them.

    “This focus is especially timely as institutions prepare for increased scrutiny under new federal measures, such as the earnings accountability test,” the report states. “Programs that do not result in gainful employment risk losing eligibility for federal aid. Embedding career readiness across offerings isn’t just about boosting ROI: It’s fast becoming essential for institutional viability.”

    Source link