This blog was kindly authored by Ioannis Soilemetzidis, Head of Student Experience and Academic Outcomes for Guildhall School of Business and Law and School of the Built Environment, London Metropolitan University

Arguably, over the last 20 years, the Student Academic Experience Survey has been instrumental in establishing the theme of “Student Experience”. Aiding universities’ leadership to refocus on student experience, as well as helping to shape the higher education debate, policy and the national regulatory framework, conceivably illuminating the road for other such initiatives.

The survey also created a unique set of data, comprising numerous facts that reveal the actual ‘lived experiences’ of students. The data is available to all and waiting for researchers seeking evidence-based answers. This year’s twentieth anniversary is a great opportunity for a very quick bullet point overview of the seventeen reports published so far (no reports published in 2008, 2010 and 2011). For more details on the overall trends, see HEPI Report 200 ‘What Matters Most? 20 years of the student experience‘ with TechnologyOne, written by Dr Gosia Turner and Rose Stephenson. A recording of our webinar discussing the findings is available here.

1. Starting in 2006 (with a Higher Education Academy grant – now Advance HE), and initially focused on the academic experience of first and second-year students in England. The survey established benchmarks (e.g. number of hours of scheduled contact time), which could be used to monitor over time if the provision increased or diminished, particularly following the introduction of higher fee levels.
2. The 2007 iteration aimed to validate the outcomes and general account of the higher education sector in England, revealed by the initial study.
3. The 2009 survey recorded a small yet statistically significant increase in the amount of private study that students undertake.
4. Following a two-year break, the 2012 survey focused on aspects of the student experience related to the amount of contact students have with staff, the size of teaching groups, and the overall number of hours they devote to their studies.
5. The original survey was conducted when students still paid an upfront fee of £1000, and that fee was about to triple. Hence, a key question was whether students paying more, would receive more for their money (e.g. smaller teaching groups, more contact hours).
6. In 2013 the survey included the experiences of third and fourth-year students, as well as students from institutions outside of England, becoming a truly UK-wide survey. The report highlighted the significant variation of the student experience, both in terms of the quantity and the type of contact received.
7. In the 2014 report the overall findings showed high levels of student satisfaction experienced across the UK. When asked about institutional expenditure priorities, a noteworthy number of students chose better training for lecturers.
8. The 2015 survey highlighted again the importance which students place on staff training and the fact that they want institutions to invest in improving the quality of teaching and learning.
9. A high number of students felt that they had not worked hard enough, and were not well supported in their independent study, indicating also that self-directed research and learning could be a critical success or failure factor in terms of employability, lifelong learning and career progression.
10. The 2016 report revealed that students’ perception of value for money continued to fall as students connected contact hours and general levels of workload with value, with key differences in perceptions of value for money by institution type. One key influencing factor was the optimum management of student expectations.
11. The 2017 survey reported further falling perceptions of value for money and included a small sample of students at alternative providers. A new question on learning gain however, highlighted that most students believed they were learning ‘a lot’ and that perceptions of teaching quality was rising.
12. The 2018 report suggested that higher education institutions continued to struggle to provide evidence as to how student fees are spent, prompting a response from the OfS.
13. The 2019 survey confirmed that teaching remained the key factor influencing students’ perception of value.
14. The 2020 report coincided with circumstances (Covid-19) unlike anything previously known for the sector and the society as a whole. Consequently, as perhaps expected, wellbeing remained a concern, as the “gap” between students and the wider younger population continuing to widen.
15. Effected by Covid-19, the 2021 survey reported the lowest level ever on a number of key measures. The proportion of students who felt they received good/very good value was very low (just over one-in-four).
16. The 2022 report was influenced by the return to in-class teaching, with student feedback increasingly focusing on scrutinising the in-person quality of teaching, programme and course administration, assessment and feedback. Students studying in London were the most satisfied with their student experience out of all English regions.
17. The 2023 survey showcased a number of interesting developments, such as: the rise in perceptions of receiving good or very good value-for-money education; a higher share of students whose experience exceeded expectations; and a clear increase in the number of students in paid employment.
18. The 2024 report indicated a positive story for many aspects of the full-time undergraduate student experience (e.g. the overall student experience was matching or exceeding expectations and students’ tendency to consider leaving their course had also declined). With some of the most positive results related to teaching and assessment.
19. But it wasn’t all good news, in 2024 the cost of living was highlighted as the single most significant concern, negatively influencing the perception of value for money when attending university.
20. Finally, the 2025 report indicated an essential shift in how students navigate their university journey. Student experience has moved away from the prior model of students living close to campus, spending significant time on campus, while undertaking paid employment during the holidays. Cost-of-living challenges and overall higher costs created a new reality, where paid work during studies is now the norm and must be managed around studies and other responsibilities. The time spent at work and a much longer commute limits the time students spend on campus.

In the current fast-moving, transformational and volatile operational environment for higher education, one cannot help but wonder what will be revealed in the upcoming 2026 report.

Seven facts from “What Matters Most? 20 years of the student experience”

This blog was kindly authored by Ioannis Soilemetzidis, Head of Student Experience and Academic Outcomes for GSBL and SBEN, London Metropolitan University.

Earlier in May, another very interesting report was published by HEPI jointly with TechnologyOne – a great reflection on the twenty years of Student Academic Experience Survey (SAES), which started in early 2006, shortly before tuition fees were raised to a maximum of £3,000 for the first time. Its purpose was to track students’ changin expectations and perceptions, originally in relation to this raising of fees.

The report (What Matters Most? 20 years of the student experience) authored by Dr Gosia Turner and Rose Stephenson does not scrutinise the prior reports, but rather reinterprets the data via a fresh look at the over 200,000 responses collected in the surveys since 2006 (apart from 2009) of the survey.

Below are seven  key findings from the main seven chapters of the report.

Chapter 1 – 20 years of student experience

From 2006 to 2026, the UK higher education sector has gone through an impressive transformation, with a number of social, technological, political and financial changes, to mention just a few.

As the sector continues to develop, this newly combined dataset will provide another helpful source of information to aid the debate, policies and decision making, supporting the importance of student voice when planning the future of higher education.

Chapter 2 – Methodology

While all possible care has been taken to link existing datasets, it is important to recognise that a combined dataset (within a fast-moving sector, evolving participants and adjusted questions) is subject to a number of caveats (for example Engineering and Technology were combined in some years but listed separately in others).

The data from the 2009 survey were not included, since, as stated, this survey was

“…smaller in scope and had a limited number of respondents…very little overlap between the 2009 Survey and other iterations…”

This exclusion is a shame as the 2009 survey revisited a number of the questions that arose from the two earlier surveys while validating much of their results. The exclusion of this survey creates a 4-year reporting gap, from 2008 to 2012.

Chapter 3 – Perception of value for money

Despite the evolving nature of the concept of value for money and the different aspects that it comprises, students’ perception is influenced by wider political and socioeconomic developments, the level of fees and other influencing factors such as the cost-of-living crisis and the evolving expectations regarding employability outcomes.

Chapter 4 – Satisfaction with timetabled sessions and access to academic staff

Allowing for significant fluctuations, most students (between 54 per cent to 70 per cent) reported adequate access to staff outside scheduled sessions. Satisfaction with the number of timetabled sessions is less strong and more volatile (between 50 per cent to 68 per cent) – Figure 4.3 page 48 of the report. Although this is perhaps as expected due to the effects of the pandemic.,

Chapter 5 – Students’ expectations versus their experience

Overall, a quarter of students agree that their experience was better than expected. While this has been declining from 2015, with the number halved in 2021 and a significant recovery since then – Figure 5.2 page 53.

Chapter 6 – Attendance

The average number of timetabled hours has been approximately 14 per week, with very small variations until 2020. After a decline during the pandemic, it has increased to approximately 15 hours per week and has remained quite stable since then – Figure 6.1 page 63.

Chapter 7 – What can we conclude after surveying students about their experience over 20 years?

Over the last twenty years, we have witnessed the reduction in part-time student numbers, unprecedented challenges (e.g. COVID-19), the continuous increase in the use of technology in teaching, learning and assessment and the recent generative AI phenomenon. The period has also seen rising student mental health challenges,  underpinned by broader inequalities.

Despite all the recent challenges, some of the key findings from the last 20 years of the survey, point back to the fundamentals of higher education: quality of teaching, personal positive interaction between students and academics and a strong sense of belonging between the student body and the host institution.

Overall, this is a great and valuable report, which excellently illustrates the value of having comparable data that covers a long period of time.