Is English studies good value for money?
Students often judge English studies poor value for money. Across National Student Survey (NSS) open-text comments on costs and value for money, 88.3% are negative with a sentiment index of −46.7, based on 5,994 comments (≈1.6% of all comments); full-time students account for 78.7% of these views and are especially critical. That category aggregates sector-wide perceptions of fees, extra spend and returns on investment, while English studies (non-specific) is the discipline grouping used for cross-provider comparisons. These sector signals frame the issues students raise below and guide where programmes can strengthen perceived value.
Cost and value for money: where do costs feel misaligned with value in English studies?
Students describe a mismatch between high tuition fees and the resource intensity of English programmes. Required texts and materials add to out-of-pocket spend without commensurate gains in learning quality. The imbalance becomes more visible when compared with actual contact time and access to resources. Programmes should publish a total cost of study, itemise typical additional spend, and state what fees cover to make pricing transparent. Clear communication about inclusions, optionality and timing of any extra costs helps students plan and reduces friction about fairness.
Do contact hours match what students pay?
Low contact hours drive dissatisfaction when set against fee levels. Industrial action reduced time further, with limited subsequent adjustment. Rather than chase volume alone, programmes can redesign seminars and workshops to deliver higher-impact contact, spell out intended learning for each session, and align assessment briefs and marking criteria with the taught contact students receive.
How do strikes affect perceived value?
Strikes disrupt continuity and can leave gaps in discussion-led learning central to English. Students report that rushed catch-up undermines depth. Providers should standardise contingency plans, offer equivalent learning opportunities, and operate prompt reimbursement or hardship routes where promised activity does not take place. Publishing service targets for reimbursements and meeting them demonstrates responsiveness.
What did online delivery change about value and interaction?
Extended online delivery altered staff–student interaction and dampened the discussion-based pedagogy that many expect in English. Students perceive a gap between the university experience they anticipated and what was delivered, especially when online teaching coincided with strike disruption. Blended approaches now need to prioritise participation, scaffold reading and debate, and ensure online tools enhance rather than replace seminar exchange.
What support shifts improve value perceptions?
Targeted support during cost-intensive periods changes perceptions of value. Students respond well when programmes schedule book loans, e-reserve access and print allowances ahead of heavy reading weeks, and when guidance in the VLE and module handbooks gives a single source of truth on costs and reimbursements. Front-loading information for incoming cohorts, particularly full-time learners, reduces uncertainty.
What English-specific costs shape value perceptions?
Mandatory book purchases accumulate quickly. Even with library holdings, specific editions and multiple core texts per module increase personal spend. Programmes can curate reading lists to prioritise library-licensed or open-access texts, expand short-loan and e-book options, and provide course packs where licensing permits. English programmes also tend to have fewer field-based experiences that signal tangible benefits, so designing low-cost enrichment such as public-facing readings, archives workshops or digital humanities labs can rebalance perceived value.
How do university management and policies shape perceptions of value?
Opaque fee spending and headlines about executive pay erode trust. Students want to see decisions that privilege teaching quality, accessible resources and timely reimbursements over administrative overheads. Regularly reporting how fees support teaching, student services and learning infrastructure helps students connect their investment to classroom and assessment outcomes.
What lasting effects from COVID-19 still shape value-for-money judgments?
Students who paid full fees during pandemic disruption often continue to benchmark current provision against that experience. Persistent concerns include reduced interaction, uneven access to specialist resources and limited financial relief. Providers that articulate how they have stabilised delivery, invested in learning resources and improved support operations can reset expectations.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
Student Voice Analytics pinpoints where value-for-money concerns bite hardest by mode, age and discipline, and tracks movement over time. You can drill from institution to school and programme, compare like-for-like across CAH codes, and segment by cohort or site to target fixes precisely. The platform standardises evidence for cost guidance, reimbursement operations and communications, with export-ready summaries for programme teams and finance to close the loop on student feedback.
Book a Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and governance packs designed for OfS quality and standards and NSS requirements.
More posts on costs and value for money:
- Do psychology students feel their UK degree offers value for money?
- Do media studies students feel they get value for money?
- Do UK mechanical engineering students feel they get value for money?
- Is biomedical sciences good value for money?