What do finance students say about teaching staff in UK higher education?
Finance students rate staff expertise and practical grounding, but they want plainer assessment communication, more consistent support and easier access to lecturers. Across the National Student Survey (NSS), the teaching staff theme attracts 78.3% Positive comments with a sentiment index of +52.8, setting a strong sector baseline for staff–student interactions. In the Common Aggregation Hierarchy subject grouping for finance, tone is more mixed at 54.5% Positive and 41.1% Negative, although comments specifically about teaching staff remain positive (index +29.6). This explains why finance cohorts often praise expertise while pressing for predictable availability, plain‑language briefs and aligned marking.
What do students value about staff experience and knowledge?
Students frequently commend staff for deep subject knowledge and up‑to‑date industry insight. They emphasise how examples from markets, regulation and risk practice translate theory into usable tools. Staff who connect quantitative methods to live data and sector contexts help students build confidence and apply learning across modules and assessment types. Maintaining this expertise, and making it visible in lectures, workshops and assessment briefs, sustains student trust.
Which teaching dynamics help finance students learn?
Students respond well to delivery that alternates between concise exposition and active problem‑solving. Case analysis, worked exemplars, and structured discussion help demystify complex topics such as derivatives pricing and portfolio construction. They also value coherent signposting of learning outcomes across a module so they can see how seminar tasks feed directly into assessment. In technical and business-facing subjects, balancing theory with hands‑on modelling and step‑by‑step walkthroughs is especially effective.
Where do communication barriers hold students back?
Students report that dense jargon, ambiguous assessment briefs and uneven use of marking criteria impede progress. They highlight language proficiency challenges for some staff, but most comments centre on the need to clarify expectations: what “good” looks like, how marks are allocated, and how to action feedback. Publishing annotated exemplars, tightening rubrics and aligning seminar tasks to assessment briefs lift comprehension and reduce rework.
How do inconsistencies in academic support affect progress?
Variation in advice across tutors leads to uneven experiences between modules. Students notice when some staff provide structured guidance while others offer limited direction, creating uncertainty about priorities and standards. Programmes that coordinate office hours, feedback conventions and escalation routes across the teaching team reduce this inconsistency and help cohorts focus on mastering core finance competencies.
Do students need greater interaction and accessibility?
Access to lecturers through predictable drop‑ins, timely responses and seminar time for questions consistently improves understanding. Students ask for easier routes to raise queries with senior lecturers and for consistent availability across the team. Where cohorts include commuters or part‑time learners, recording short Q&A summaries and maintaining a single, reliable channel for updates make support more equitable.
Does staff enthusiasm shape student engagement?
Students notice and mirror staff energy. When lecturers use varied delivery, connect content to current events and demonstrate curiosity, cohorts invest more in pre‑reading, seminars and formative tasks. Where delivery feels perfunctory, motivation dips. Peer observation, co‑teaching in complex sessions and periodic refresh of teaching materials help sustain an engaging tone without adding workload peaks.
What should finance departments prioritise next?
- Prioritise assessment clarity: align briefs, rubrics and exemplars; calibrate marking across the team; schedule formative checkpoints tied to criteria.
- Standardise support: agree visible norms for availability, response windows and routes for complex queries; maintain a single source of truth for module updates.
- Design for interaction: build predictable drop‑ins and structured seminar tasks that link directly to assessments; provide asynchronous Q&A options for students with limited on‑campus time.
- Support engaging delivery: pair lecturers for complex sessions, refresh case materials, and use short worked examples to scaffold quantitative topics.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
Student Voice Analytics surfaces finance students’ comments about teaching staff and delivery in one place, tracking tone and topics over time from institution to module level. You can compare finance against the wider teaching staff theme, segment by cohort and mode, and pinpoint where clarity, access or consistency will move sentiment most. Export‑ready briefings and dashboards help programme teams close the loop with students and evidence progress on assessment practice, delivery, scheduling and staff availability.
Request a walkthrough
Book a Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and governance packs designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready governance packs.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
More posts on teaching staff:
- Are drama students positive about their teaching staff, and what should departments prioritise?
- What are students saying about teaching staff in social sciences?
- What do aeronautical engineering students say about teaching staff?
- What do sport and exercise sciences students say about teaching staff?