Survey: Student Success Administrators Optimistic

In Inside Higher Ed’s inaugural survey of undergraduate student success administrators at two- and four-year institutions, out today, these leaders tend to rate the educational quality and overall campus climate at their institution highly. The 199 administrators—most working in student affairs at the director level or above—also generally approve of their institution’s efforts to promote student health and wellness, and to prepare students for life after college.

But they indicate there’s room for improvement in areas such as collecting and analyzing student success data, making instruction relevant for students, increasing students’ sense of belonging and financial literacy, and building trust between students and key administrators.

Here are 10 things to know up front from the survey, administered with Hanover Research:

1. Nearly all student success leaders rate the quality of education for undergraduates at their institution as good (48 percent) or excellent (48 percent). Ratings are similarly high for the value students are receiving for their education, though public institution administrators are more likely to rate the value as excellent (68 percent) than are leaders at private nonprofits (46 percent).  
2. About six in 10 student success leaders (59 percent) say their institution is very or extremely effective at making student success an institutional priority. Fewer say their institution is very or extremely effective at measures such as collecting (44 percent) and analyzing (40 percent) student success data.  
3. Asked how much trust undergraduates have in various groups at their institution, student success leaders’ top choice is faculty, with about half (49 percent) saying students have a great deal of trust in professors. The least-trusted group? Financial aid staff, with two in 10 (21 percent) leaders believing students have a great deal of trust.  
4. Seven in 10 student success leaders say the response from administrators at their own institution last spring to any student protests over the Middle East conflict was good or excellent. But just a quarter (28 percent) agree the response from leaders across higher education as a whole was good or excellent.  

5. Asked what would most increase undergraduates’ academic success at their institution, student success leaders’ No. 1 classroom-based choice is encouraging faculty members to help students better connect what they’re learning in class to outside issues and events and/or their career goals (64 percent choose this). Beyond the classroom, desired actions include increasing opportunities for social connection and building a sense of belonging (68 percent). 
6. Some eight in 10 student success leaders (81 percent) say their institution is doing a good or excellent job at promoting and supporting undergraduate mental health, but many (39 percent) say a holistic mental health plan could help further. Leaders also identify balancing academics with personal, family or financial responsibilities as the top source of stress for undergraduates, with seven in 10 (71 percent) choosing this option from a long list. And in terms of financial wellness, just a third of student success leaders say their institution is doing a good or excellent job at promoting and supporting undergraduate financial literacy.

7. Most student success leaders say involvement in extracurricular activities and events is very or extremely important to undergraduates’ overall well-being and success, both while in college (90 percent) and with residual benefits after graduation (73 percent). But how involved are students at their institution? Leaders estimate just four in 10 students (40 percent) are involved in one to three regular extracurricular activities. 
8. About two in three student success leaders rate their institution’s overall efforts to support undergraduates in their career exploration and development as good (44 percent) or excellent (23 percent). By institution type, leaders at public doctoral institutions are especially likely to say the support is good or excellent (83 percent).  
9. Most student success leaders agree, somewhat (46 percent) or strongly (25 percent), that undergraduates at their institution consider themselves not just students but also customers. Most student success leaders also somewhat (40 percent) or strongly (38 percent) agree that parents of undergraduates at their institution view themselves as customers.  

10. Half of student success leaders (50 percent) say their institution has been very or extremely effective at helping current undergrads navigate the troubled rollout of recent changes to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. And more than half of respondents (58 percent) are very or extremely concerned about the FAFSA changes impacting current undergraduates’ ability to afford and remain enrolled at their institution.

Additionally, student success leaders’ overall job satisfaction is relatively high, with more than seven in 10 (74 percent) rating theirs as good or excellent. Sense of connection with students served is especially strong: Some eight in 10 rate theirs as good or excellent.

‘Energy and Enthusiasm Around This Work’

John Volin, executive vice president for academic affairs and provost at the University of Maine, who reviewed the findings, says, “Research like this is incredibly important in how we support students,” and the “results are overall quite positive. It is good to see the energy and enthusiasm around this work. Not all sectors of higher education are reacting with the same positivity.”

Volin—who co-wrote a recent article in PNAS Nexus arguing that institutions must play an active role in supporting students’ lifelong well-being by expanding their definitions of student success—also says it was “very gratifying to see that many findings link closely with the expanded well-being metrics” he and his colleagues advocate. That a majority of student success leaders say helping students better understand the relevance of what they’re learning to their lives and the world around them aligns with research on the importance of providing authentic experiential learning opportunities for students, he adds.

Amelia Parnell, president of NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, who also reviewed the findings, sees the results on relevance of classroom instruction as “very timely.” Many institutions have worked in recent years to “intentionally help students connect their learning across classroom and out-of-classroom experiences,” she says. One indication of progress across higher ed (but not addressed in this survey): The increased development of records that supplement academic transcripts as official documentation of learning.

Parnell underscores the mental health findings, saying that the top five issues of concern in NASPA’s annual Top Issues in Student Affairs survey all related to health, safety and well-being, including increasing access to mental health services and enhancing campuswide collaboration on health and safety.

Tammy Wyatt, senior vice provost for student success at the University of Texas at San Antonio, says that based on her institution’s internal surveying, the top pathway to student thriving is sense of belonging. No. 2 is satisfaction with personal well-being and mental health, and No. 3 is connection to the faculty. UTSA has a number of initiatives designed to put more students on these pathways, including the Connect & Thrive Faculty Mini-Grant Program, which helps faculty members develop activities for students outside the classroom.

Like Volin and Parnell, Wyatt emphasizes the role of well-being—across its dimensions—in student success. While there’s rightly been ample research on mental health in recent years, other “impactful dimensions of well-being, such as financial well-being, have not been as widely discussed.” This is especially salient at an institution such as UTSA, where Wyatt says nearly half of students are federal Pell Grant eligible, over 70 percent receive some form of financial aid, and 80 percent work at least part-time.

“The role of finances in student success and thriving is more evident. This must be addressed within a comprehensive student success plan.”

Regarding student success leaders’ relatively low marks for collecting and analyzing student success data, Parnell calls this an area of opportunity, “especially as institutions get more specific about their indicators of success.” Beyond common measures such as graduation rate, retention rate and persistence in major, she says institutions can review leading indicators of students’ engagement with campus resources: “Data related to students’ use of services such as coaching, tutoring, mentoring and advising could also provide insight about the extent to which students are having positive experiences that contribute to their overall success.”

To this point, Volin says student success is often “solely measured with traditional metrics.” And while these metrics are certainly important, “transformative educational practices should be included in matrices of student success.”

The new survey did not explicitly define student success, but Inside Higher Ed—and many student success leaders—adopt a holistic definition. IHE’s student success coverage, for example, is divided into four interrelated domains: academic success, health and wellness (including financial wellness), campus life or involvement, and, finally, preparing for life after college. This survey asked questions about institutional efforts in all these areas.

One more note: Volin says that it’s important to consider how students themselves feel about their institution’s student success efforts. We agree, and have included some findings from the 2024 Inside Higher Ed/Generation Lab survey of more than 5,000 two- and four-year college students in the detailed administrator survey overview below.

Prioritizing Quality of Education and Student Success

Student success leaders’ ratings of undergraduate education at their institution as good or excellent are relatively consistent across institution type. But student success leaders at public doctoral institutions (58 percent of this group) and at private nonprofit baccalaureate institutions (67 percent) are most likely to rate the quality as excellent. Asked about the value undergraduate students are receiving at their institution—the cost of attendance relative to the quality of education received—the numbers are similarly positive.

How does this compare to students’ perceptions? In Inside Higher Ed’s 2024 Student Voice survey, most students said the quality of education they’re receiving is good (46 percent) or excellent (27 percent). This was consistent across two- and four-year students, but students at private nonprofit institutions were more likely than their public institution counterparts to say that the quality of their education is excellent (42 percent versus 24 percent, respectively).

Back to student success leaders: While a majority say their institution is very or extremely effective in prioritizing student success, fewer say it’s very or extremely effective at actions like using student success data to inform decisions/initiatives and building a culture of data around student success.

By sector, public institution leaders are more likely than their private nonprofit counterparts to view their institution as highly effective in these areas. By institution type, student success leaders at community colleges are especially likely to say their institution is very or extremely effective at analyzing student success data (54 percent) and building a culture of data around student success (50 percent). Leaders at private nonprofit baccalaureate institutions are especially unlikely to say their institution is highly effective in some of these areas: Just 15 percent of this group say their institution excels at building a culture of data around student success, for instance.

Campus Climate and Student Trust

Asked about campus climate—meaning how welcomed, valued and supported all students, faculty, staff and visitors feel—nearly all student success leaders somewhat or strongly agree that students feel welcomed, supported and valued.

This is relatively consistent across institution type and sector, but student success leaders who have been in their role under three years are less likely (83 percent) than longer-serving peers to say that all students feel valued. Most student success leaders also say their institution is doing a good (60 percent) or excellent (19 percent) job at promoting a positive campus climate. By institution type, leaders at public doctoral institutions are especially likely to rate their institution’s efforts here as good or excellent (91 percent). By region, leaders in the Northeast are least likely to approve (66 percent).

While students’ most trusted group on campus is faculty, according to student success leaders, not far behind are academic advisers, residence life staff and—perhaps surprisingly, given the tumultuous year for many institutions—the president. Student success leaders are much less likely to say undergraduates at their institution have a great deal of in trust executive-level officers other than the president, though. And, as mentioned above—perhaps unsurprisingly, given this year’s FAFSA debacle and students’ general views on affordability—financial aid staff.

By sector, student success leaders at private nonprofit institutions are especially likely to say that undergraduates have a great deal of trust in professors (59 percent versus 42 percent among public institution student success leaders). But reported undergraduate trust in financial aid staff is especially low at private nonprofit institutions (13 percent versus 26 percent among public institution leaders).

While student success leaders clearly have a more favorable view of the administrative response at their own institution to any student protests last spring than of the general higher ed response, leaders at public institutions are more likely than those at private nonprofits to rate the general response as good or excellent (34 percent versus 19 percent, respectively). Age may factor in, as well: Some 63 percent of leaders between the ages of 40 and 49 say the administrative response at their own institution was good or excellent, compared to 78 percent of those 50 to 59 and 79 percent of those 60 to 69.

Among Student Voice respondents, closer to two in three undergraduates say that most (49 percent) or nearly all (18 percent) students on their campus feel welcomed, valued and supported.

Academic Success

Beyond encouraging faculty members to help students better connect what they’re learning in class to issues outside the classroom and/or their career goals, student success leaders endorse academic-focused actions such as dedicating more resources to academic advising (45 percent).

In Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey, students’ top two priorities from a similar list of options were encouraging faculty members to limit high-stakes exams, such as those counting for 40 percent or more of a grade (46 percent) and—aligning with student success leaders—encouraging faculty members to help students better connect what they’re learning in class to issues outside the classroom and/or their career goals (40 percent).

As for what student experience–focused institutional actions would most promote undergraduates’ academic success at their institution, student success leaders point to promoting belonging, as well as options such as creating more opportunities for paid on-campus work—including internship and leadership opportunities fitting varied student interests (60 percent).

How do these results compare with Student Voice respondents’ priorities on a similar question? Students’ top priorities in this area were making tuition more affordable so students can better balance academics and finances/work (55 percent) and—again aligning with student success leaders—creating more opportunities for paid on-campus work, including internship or leadership opportunities that fit a variety of student interests (49 percent).

Regarding high-impact teaching and learning practices, student success leaders see a big difference in the extent to which they’re encouraged versus adopted at their institution: Some 69 percent say such practices are highly encouraged, but just 38 percent say they’ve been widely adopted. By institution type, student success leaders at private nonprofit baccalaureate institutions and at public doctoral institutions are most likely to say that high-impact teaching practices have been widely adopted, at 47 percent each.

Asked what kind of emphasis their institution places on offering undergraduate course modality options beyond in-person, about a third of student success leaders (34 percent) say the emphasis is high or very high. Public institutions appear to lead here, by sector, with 46 percent of public institution student success leaders saying their college or university places a significant emphasis on providing undergraduates multiple course modalities. That’s compared to 14 percent of leaders at private nonprofit institutions. Community colleges seem to be driving much of this difference, with 73 percent of student success leaders from these colleges saying their institution strongly emphasizes multiple modalities.

Health and Wellness

Again, most student success leaders approve of their institution’s efforts to promote undergraduate mental health. Regarding other dimensions of wellness, many student success leaders say their institution is doing a good or excellent job promoting and supporting undergraduates’ overall well-being (75 percent), social belonging (68 percent), self-care (68 percent), stress management (64 percent), academic fit (64 percent) and physical health (61 percent).

By sector, public institution administrators are more likely than their private nonprofit peers to approve of their institution’s efforts on financial literacy, with community college success leaders especially approving of their institution’s efforts here.

Beyond creating a holistic mental health plan for their campus, relatively large shares of student success leaders say the following institutional actions would best promote undergraduate well-being, including mental health: investing in wellness facilities and/or services (35 percent) and establishing and/or expanding peer mental health training programs and training (35 percent).

Responding to a similar question in the Student Voice survey, students’ top choice from a similar list was rethinking exam schedules and/or limiting high-stakes exams (46 percent).

Regarding the health and wellness services and offerings at their institution, many leaders rate the quality, availability and variety as good or excellent. There are differences by institution type, however: On variety of services, for example, 93 percent of public doctoral student success leaders say it’s good or excellent, compared to 55 percent of community college leaders.

Beyond balancing academics with personal, family or financial responsibilities, including work, many student success leaders also point to paying for college (43 percent) and acute, short-term personal stress (30 percent) as top causes or kinds of stress students experience. By institution type, student success leaders at public doctoral institutions are more likely than their peers elsewhere to say paying for college is a top driver of undergraduate stress (67 percent).

In the Student Voice survey, the top three responses to a parallel question about drivers of stress were similar but put more of an emphasis on academic (versus personal) stress: balancing academics with personal, family or financial responsibilities (48 percent); paying for college (34 percent); and acute or intense, short-term academic stress (32 percent).

Asked what’s driving the college mental health crisis, student success leaders are most likely to say decreased socialization skills due to the pandemic, prevalence of social media and increased loneliness.

Leaders who’ve been in their position for 10 or more years are likelier (58 percent) than their counterparts with shorter tenures to select prevalence of social media. By institution type, leaders at public doctoral institutions are likelier than their peers elsewhere to select increased loneliness (57 percent). Those at community colleges are most likely to select destigmatization of seeking mental health services (39 percent).

In the Student Voice survey, students identified the following as top drivers of the mental health crisis: the need to balance academics with personal, economic and family responsibilities (42 percent); increased academic stress (37 percent); and prevalence of social media (33 percent).

Student Involvement

As noted, there’s a gap between how important student success leaders say participation in extracurriculars and events is to student success and reported levels of regular student involvement. So what would boost undergraduates’ involvement in campus life? Student success leaders’ No. 1 choice from a long list is if students saw a connection between extracurricular activities and their future career goals. No. 2 is if students didn’t have to work off campus, with public institution respondents most likely to say this.

By institution type, student success leaders at community colleges are least likely to agree that involvement in college is highly important to students’ well-being and success postgraduation (59 percent). Leaders at community colleges also report that 60 percent of students, on average, are involved in no regular extracurricular activities—a much larger share than any other group.

For students who are regularly involved in campus activities, student success leaders estimate that about a third each are very involved (37 percent), moderately involved (33 percent) and somewhat involved (31 percent) in these activities.

In Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey, just 29 percent of students said involvement in campus life was highly important to their success while in college, and 27 percent said it was highly important to their success postgraduation.

Preparing Students for Life After College (Including AI)

Again, most student success leaders rate their institution’s overall efforts to support undergraduates in their career exploration and development as good or excellent.

Similarly, student success leaders tend to agree, somewhat (53 percent) or strongly (35 percent), that their institution is preparing undergraduate students well for general success after graduation. This is relatively consistent across institution types and regions.

Regarding their institution’s career center and/or career services offerings, some eight in 10 student success leaders somewhat or strongly agree that they’re welcoming (83 percent), that staff are knowledgeable about a variety of industries and the job market (81 percent), and that they’re effective at helping students pursue their career goals (80 percent).

Potential areas for improvement include boosting online resources and connecting students with alumni: Some 63 percent of student success leaders say their institution’s career center/services has sufficient online resources, while 56 percent say it effectively connects students with the institution’s alumni network.

Presented with list of options, the top aspect of career development that student success leaders say their institution should prioritize (selecting up to five) is helping students prepare for internship and career success, such as developing people skills and awareness of workplace expectations (65 percent).

This is one of several instances in the survey where private nonprofit institution student success leaders seem especially likely to value alumni and mentorship networks: Some 55 percent of this group say that their institution should prioritize connecting undergraduates to alumni and other potential mentors, for example. That’s compared to 32 percent of public institution student success leaders.

Student success leaders also seem to expect a high level of faculty engagement in career preparation, based on the survey, with half or more agreeing that faculty members are at least partially responsible for preparing students with skills needed for their careers (68 percent), sharing how careers in their field are evolving (59 percent) and being a mentor (51 percent). Fewer student success leaders say faculty members are at least partly responsible for things like helping students find internships (19 percent) or networking (33 percent). But those at private nonprofit institutions are more likely than their public counterparts to say that faculty members should be involved in mentorship (65 percent versus 42 percent, respectively) and networking (40 percent versus 29 percent).

In the Student Voice survey this year, some 55 percent of students said professors are at least partly responsible for being a mentor. Student Voice respondents’ No. 1 priority, by far, for career centers/services was helping students find job and internship opportunities, with 48 percent of students choosing this.

When asked what actions their institution has taken to help undergraduate students understand how to use artificial intelligence, including generative AI, in their coursework, about half of the leaders say it has encouraged professors to address the issue in class (48 percent) and to include an AI policy in their syllabi (45 percent). About three in 10 each say their institution has developed policies related to academic misconduct and AI (31 percent); provided information sessions, trainings or workshops on the productive use of AI (also 31 percent); and published a policy or policies on AI use (31 percent).

Fewer leaders say their institution has provided online resources or materials (20 percent) or integrated AI topics into the curriculum (17 percent). Public doctoral institutions and private doctoral/master’s institutions appear to be leading across a number of actions. Some 55 percent of public doctoral student success leaders say their institution has encouraged professors to include AI policies in their syllabi, for instance. Still, 54 percent of community college student success leaders say their institution has encouraged professors to address appropriate use of AI in class.

At the same time, few respondents say their institution has been very or extremely effective at helping undergraduates understand and use AI, including generative AI, for coursework, career readiness or life skills.

Students (and Parents) as Customers

Regarding concerns about a growing customer-service dynamic in higher education, most student success leaders agree that undergraduates at their institution consider themselves not just students but also customers of the college or university, meaning that they expect to have their needs met and be empathized with because they are paying tuition and fees.

This is consistent across sector and institution type. Student success leaders who agree say that undergraduates consider themselves customers in a variety of contexts, such as when dealing with administrators (86 percent) and with staff (84 percent). Fewer of these student success leaders—but still a significant share—say students view themselves as customers of the institution in their academic classes (44 percent) and with faculty members outside of class (29 percent).

By sector, student success leaders at private nonprofit institutions are likelier than their public counterparts to say students view themselves as customers with administrators (94 percent versus 80 percent, respectively) and staff (91 percent versus 79 percent). But leaders at public institutions are more likely to say students view themselves as customers in class (52 percent versus 34 percent at private nonprofit institutions).

Most student success leaders also somewhat (40 percent) or strongly (38 percent) agree that parents of undergraduates at their institution view themselves as customers.

As for how satisfied undergraduates are as customers of their institution, just three in 10 student success leaders (30 percent) say students are very or extremely satisfied. The largest share of leaders, 55 percent, say students are moderately satisfied. At the same time, nearly all student success leaders somewhat or strongly agree that when faced with issues that need resolving, undergraduates feel the employees who assist them are helpful (91 percent), responsive (88 percent) and welcoming (also 88 percent).

As for how these responses compare to Student Voice respondents’ on a similar set of questions, four in 10 students (41 percent) consider themselves customers of their institution in their classes and across campus. Closer to one in 10 each said they consider themselves to be customers only in class (13 percent) and only outside of classes (11 percent). Among students who consider themselves to be customers of the institution, 15 percent said they were very satisfied, while the plurality, 45 percent, were somewhat satisfied.

FAFSA Fears and Being a Student Success Administrator

Half of student success leaders say their institution has been highly effective at helping current undergraduates navigate the new FAFSA—not exactly an endorsement of efforts here. Just 6 percent say their institution has been not at all effective, with the rest split between somewhat (13 percent) and moderately (32 percent) effective.

Student success leaders at private nonprofit institutions are somewhat more likely than peers at public institutions to say their college or university has been highly effective (55 percent versus 45 percent, respectively). By region, those in the Northeast (59 percent) are likelier than the group over all to say their institution has been highly effective.

As mentioned above, more than half of respondents over all are highly concerned about the FAFSA changes impacting current undergraduates’ ability to afford and remain enrolled. Just 3 percent are not at all concerned, while the rest are somewhat concerned (14 percent) or moderately concerned (25 percent).

While student success leaders’ overall job satisfaction is relatively high, fewer leaders (49 percent) rate their opportunities for career advancement at their institution as good or excellent, however. Two in three rate their support system at work—including support from their supervisor—as good or excellent. About two in three student success leaders also rate their own mental health and overall well-being, factoring in their level of job stress, as good or excellent.

Wyatt, of UTSA, says of the data over all that while a few points were unexpected, “others are validated by my experiences, scholarly work and UTSA student data.”

Is there a survey finding that surprised you or that you otherwise feel strongly about? Share your perspective here.

Not a subscriber to our Student Success newsletter? Sign up to receive free daily news, ideas, advice and inspiration to help in supporting students.