UCL’s Fatal Flaw: Student Satisfaction
Photo Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons
The results of the recent NSS student survey have once again spotlighted UCL’s Achilles’ heel: student satisfaction.
In stark contrast to the 83% national average, both Fine Art BA and Economics and Business with East European East European Studies BA reported mere 33% and 31% student satisfaction rates. Whilst UCL is indisputably a fantastic university, evidenced by their recent nomination as the Sunday Times’ “University of the Year”, the survey calls into question their ability to offer an adequate student experience.
UCL has long struggled with this, placing 49th in the Complete University Guide’s 2024 national student satisfaction rankings. This begs the question: why does UCL rank so poorly? Common excuses include UCL’s London location and the financial stress attached, especially in the midst of a cost of living crisis, and the intense academic pressures of a leading university. However, this does not explain its ranking behind universities such as Imperial College London, St Andrews, and Warwick University.
Low rankings come from a host of overlapping issues, with poor administration a common student grievance. For example, only 6% of polled Fine Art students agreed their course was “well organised and running smoothly”. Even on higher ranking courses like Politics and International Relations, only 46% considered their course to be well-run.
Assessment and feedback also proves a weak point of UCL, with only 25% of Fine Arts students reporting their work was marked on time. This issue is not isolated to one course - most departments at UCL repeatedly fall short of their own policies on marking. Staff response times are also often behind their guidelines. Although UCL’s Academic Manual states an official transfer should take a maximum of ten working days, with the student informed of any delays, one student disclosed that despite initiating their request long before the start of term, it took 24 working days to resolve. Provided with no clear explanation and little contact from staff, the student was unable to choose their modules and prepare for the upcoming academic year, contributing to a general sense of dread and anxiety.
As the above example demonstrates, student support is a crucial shortcoming of the UCL administration. Many students have never met their personal tutor, which, in such a major city, can make for an incredibly lonely and impersonal experience. UCL generally scores poorly on “sense of community”, leaving students disconnected and unnoticed. Only 60% of medical students feel part of a community, a surprising statistic considering the high contact hours of the degree and an entire set of medicine-centred societies.
Students deem mental health support and counselling services provided by the university ill-advertised. Even when accessed, counselling services are not adequate: one student explained that after seeking support from these services, the wait for a response exceeded two months.
Despite UCL’s outstanding academic reputation, the personal experiences of UCL students paint a concerning picture of student life. Subpar organisation, chaotic administration, impersonal support, and a lack of community all contribute to an insufficient student experience.
It seems reasonable to question whether student fees are worth paying. Given UCL’s status as an “international” university, a significant proportion of students pay upwards of £27,000 per year for not only a degree, but also their experience. How much of this money actually goes to achieving that end, and how much of it is upholding overly bureaucratic and complex systems? Student satisfaction is fast becoming UCL’s fatal flaw - if this does not improve, its scores in more holistic rankings will become a mockery.