Student satisfaction surveys hold back efforts to instil resilience

The qualities needed to thrive in the workplace have changed. As technology continues to evolve at pace, with AI and automation reshaping roles almost overnight, it’s almost impossible now for employers to hire talent with the exact skills that will be needed in five years’ time.

That’s why employers are placing increasing value not so much on traditional academic knowledge as on the qualities such as resilience, adaptability and confidence that help young people adapt, communicate and navigate real workplace pressures.

Employers consistently tell me they are looking for graduates who can collaborate, think critically, respond constructively to feedback and recover when things don’t go to plan. But while universities are increasingly prioritising critical thinking, resilience is still a difficult quality for them to grapple with.

One reason is a misunderstanding of what it is. Resilience is often spoken about as though it were an inherent personality trait: something people either have or don’t have. But, actually, there is a lot that universities can do to instil it.

Resilience is not about simply being able to “tough it out” or cope in silence. Nor is it about avoiding difficulty altogether. Resilience is the ability to engage productively with challenge: to process feedback, reflect on mistakes, regulate emotional responses and apply learning when circumstances change.

This can be developed, but not through exposure alone. Resilience doesn’t simply appear as soon as someone enrols in higher learning or starts in a professional role. If young people haven’t built it in a safe space, challenges and pressure can reinforce anxiety and defensiveness rather than build confidence, judgement and self-awareness.

Nor can resilience be taught purely theoretically. It’s a skill learned best by actively engaging and practising. It requires students to experience a degree of challenge, uncertainty and, at times, discomfort – within a university environment that also offers appropriate support for them to process feedback, recover from setbacks and keep moving forwards: skills that are essential not just for work but for life beyond university.

It is particularly helpful if the challenges that students are asked to confront closely mirror those they will encounter in professional environments. At Regent’s University London, we embed this approach across teaching, careers support and the wider student experience. From live projects and industry collaborations to placements and industry speakers, every interaction is designed to help students feel confident and familiar with real-world working environments.

A good example is our Luxury Lab, where master’s students work on genuine business challenges with leaders from global luxury brands such as Fortnum & Mason, Berry Bros. & Rudd and Laurent-Perrier. These experiences allow students to collaborate under pressure, test their ideas and learn from real-time industry feedback. Many go on to secure internships, roles and opportunities that shape their next steps.

Yet many universities will worry that if they actively challenge their students, they will suffer for it in student satisfaction surveys – and the league tables they feed. I haven’t seen any evidence that UK universities are deliberately giving students an easy ride in order to perform well in satisfaction surveys, but I acknowledge the genuine tension here.

Of course, we all want students to enjoy their time at university. And we all want them to feel supported and valued, and for this to be reflected in their feedback, whichever form that takes. The National Student Survey plays an important role in amplifying student voice and institutional accountability, which we must not overlook. However, we must ensure that satisfaction is not pursued at the expense of long-term development. And, to do that, it’s clear to me that the sector must rethink how student success is defined and measured in today’s landscape.

“Student satisfaction” is a broad and often vague concept. While it captures valuable insight, measures that also assess learning, skills acquisition or educational gain would offer a more meaningful insight into student experience and success (as well as helping institutions internally test whether their teaching approaches are having the intended effect).

Approaches to assessing student satisfaction that involved active participation by students, or were led by institutions, would provide richer insights than the multiple-choice surveys that are currently used. Examples could include interactive digital portfolios and student-led reflective vivas that documented learning journeys in real time. For instance, a student might present a live project log to a panel of peers and faculty, who would evaluate not only the student’s final output but also how they responded to setbacks and adapted their approach.

Of course, these measures would be more onerous to undertake, and the analysis and comparison between institutions of the detailed, qualitative insights they produced would be more complicated. Such a shift in approach would not lend itself to a single national, quantised database in the NSS mould: it would offer a different kind of evidence base, potentially with external moderation for credibility.

Universities need to be clear in their internal and external communications that a core part of preparing for life beyond university is facing challenge – within a context of strong academic guidance, careers coaching, mentoring and opportunities to reflect on feedback and growth.

When students understand why they are being challenged and feel supported through it, resilience becomes a positive and empowering part of their journey, rather than something to be avoided.

Hannah Fox is director of corporate engagement at Regent’s University London.