NSS and the Cathedral’s Group

When I moved to Swansea University in 2014 it was clear that those universities that topped the NSS overall satisfaction table (including Swansea) were those that were ‘at the end of the line’. In other words, they were at the end of the railway line, relatively isolated, self-contained, of a particular size, and absolutely committed to the experience of their students. Swansea was able to benefit from this for several years, constantly seeking to be better than Bangor and Aberystwyth, who were in a very similar position and were similar kinds of university.

There was some disruption in the early 2020s, not least because of COVID, but there were also other changes. Many of these universities, like Swansea, were growing (Swansea grew from 14,000 students in 2014 to over 20, 000 only five years later), were aiming to establish themselves as ‘research universities’ and were therefore losing their focus on student satisfaction and struggling with massified education. It was becoming increasingly difficult to maintain their position at the top of the NSS league tables. The NSS itself was also coming in for criticism and change, not least with the removal of the overall satisfaction question (if only in England).

At the same time the smaller, newer, universities, most of which belonged to the Cathedral’s group, were establishing themselves and learning how to play the system. These universities have a heritage that places the student at the centre of their work, look back to values (often faith based) that underpin the culture of the university, and are of a size that can continue to be attractive and relevant to individual students without feeling overwhelmed. It is of no surprise, therefore, that in this year’s NSS results, it is universities from this group (with a few notable exceptions) that have topped the THE league table based on overall satisfaction.

In part, this is because NSS, despite the various changes in recent years, is still a measure of satisfaction. The questions might be about teaching quality, feedback on assessments or whatever it is, but the scores that students give will reflect their emotional commitment to the institution rather than any rational understanding of quality or feedback (most students have no criteria for measuring these or comparing their own experience with that of other institutions). Placing a strong emphasis on engagement with students and individualised care (something that is always easier with a campus based, smaller, institution) will always score more highly, particularly once all institutions have learnt how to engage with students in a way to encourage positive responses.

This is not to denigrate the significant amount of work, attention to detail, and real care for students that is still needed score highly in the NSS. It is far too easy for a few simple mistakes, organisational failures, or negativity from staff, to really damage the scores, as I have seen in particular departments over the years. There is also a correlation between staff morale and that of the students, and hence of student scores, that must have been impacted by all the strikes and other concerns that staff across so many institutions have faced in recent years. It is still very difficult to score well in NSS and Bishop Grosseteste, Trinty St David, Liverpool Hope, Plymouth Marjon and the others should be congratulated for their result and the hard work and commitment of their staff should be clearly recognised (my own university, where I am now a member of the council, is Birmingham Newman, ranked 13^th which is an excellent score).

The real question, however, is whether this is going to make any real difference. The public view will still be that the Russell Group are the premier division of the higher education sector, and if we take the rounded view, including research and global impact that may be appropriate. However, for students looking for the right university it is difficult to argue that the Russell Group, or any other group, is always going to be the right choice. Will the higher ranking for Cathedral’s group university lead to greater interest from potential students, or perhaps their parents and advisors, and to increasing numbers? Perhaps, it is difficult to predict. My hunch, however, is that it will not. Many schools are still measured on the number of students they get into the Russell group. That must now be even more inappropriate than it ever was.

Will the table also mean that values and the placing of the student at the heart of the university move back towards the centre of university missions? I also doubt that this will be the case. Those universities with a faith heritage are at an advantage here and should be marketing themselves based on their values. I have always argued that a faith base should be reflected in the focus on, and care for students (as well as excellence in teaching and research) and I do think that, for now, that is just beginning to be seen in these latest NSS results. Let’s hope, perhaps against expectations, that this will see a realignment of the sector as a whole.