Student suicides: why stable data still demand urgent reform 

This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Emma Roberts, Head of Law at the University of Salford. 

New figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that student suicide rates in England and Wales for the period 2016 to 2023 remain stable – but stability is no cause for complacency. The age-adjusted suicide rate among higher education students stands at 6.9 deaths per 100,000, compared with 10.2 per 100,000 for the general population of the same age group. Over the seven years of data collection, there were 1,163 student deaths by suicide – that is around 160 lives lost every year. 

The rate being lower than the wider population is encouraging and may reflect the investment the sector has made in recent years. Universities have developed more visible wellbeing services, invested in staff training and created stronger cultures of awareness around mental health. The relative stability in the data can be seen as evidence that these interventions matter. But stability is not a resolution. Each student suicide is a preventable tragedy. The data should therefore be read not as reassurance, but as a call to sustain momentum and prepare for the challenges that lie ahead. 

What the ONS data tells us 

The figures highlight some familiar patterns. Male students remain at significantly higher risk than female students, accounting for nearly two-thirds of all suicides. Undergraduate students are at greater risk than postgraduate students, while students living at home have the lowest suicide rate. The data also shows that rates among White students are higher than for Black or Asian students, though the sample sizes are small, so these figures may be less reliable. 

In terms of trend, the highest rate was recorded in the 2019 academic year (8.8 per 100,000). Since then, the rate has fallen back but remains stubbornly consistent, with 155 deaths recorded in the most recent year. The ONS notes that these figures are subject to revision due to coroner delays, meaning even the latest year may be under-reported. 

The key point is that the problem is not worsening, but it is also not going away. 

A changing student demographic 

This year’s recruitment trends have introduced a new variable. Several high-tariff providers (universities with the highest entry requirements) have reduced entry requirements in order to secure numbers. This can open up opportunities for students who might otherwise not have had access to selective institutions. But it does raise important questions about preparedness. 

Students admitted through lower tariffs may bring with them different kinds of needs and pressures: greater financial precarity, additional academic transition challenges, or less familiarity with the social and cultural capital that selective universities sometimes assume. These are all recognised risk factors for stress, isolation and, in some cases, mental ill-health. Universities with little prior experience of supporting this demographic may find their existing systems under strain. 

Building on progress, not standing still 

Much good work is already being done. Many universities have strengthened their partnerships with local National Health Service (NHS) trusts, introduced proactive wellbeing campaigns and embedded support more visibly in the student journey. We should recognise and celebrate this progress. 

At the same time, the ONS data is a reminder that now is not the moment to stand still. Stability in the numbers reflects the effort made – but it should also prompt us to ask whether our systems are sufficiently flexible and resilient to meet new pressures. The answer, for some institutions, may well be yes. For others, particularly those adapting to new student demographics, there is a real risk of being caught unprepared. 

What needs to happen next 

There are several constructive steps the sector can take: 

• Stress-test provision:  
  Assess whether wellbeing and safeguarding structures are designed to support the needs of the current, not historic, intake. 

• Broaden staff capacity:  
  Ensure that all staff, not just specialists, have the awareness and training to spot early warning signs so that distress does not go unnoticed. 

• Strengthen partnerships:  
  Align more closely with local NHS and community services to prevent students falling between two in-demand systems. 

• Share practice sector-wide:  
  Collectively learn across the sector. Good practice must be disseminated, not siloed. 

These are not dramatic or expensive interventions. They are achievable and pragmatic steps that can reduce risk while broader debates about legal and regulatory reform continue. 

Conclusion 

The ONS data shows that student suicide is not escalating. But the rate remains concerningly consistent at a level that represents an unacceptable loss of life each year. The progress universities have made should be acknowledged, but the danger of complacency is real. As recruitment patterns shift and new student demographics emerge, the sector must ensure that safeguarding and wellbeing systems are ready to adapt. 

Every statistic represents a life lost. Stability must not become complacency – it should be a call to action, a chance to consolidate progress, anticipate new challenges and keep the prevention of every avoidable death at the heart of institutional priorities.