Student Voice Analytics for Finance — UK student feedback 2018–2025
Scope. UK NSS open-text comments for Finance (CAH17-01-07) students across academic years 2018–2025.
Volume. ~2,561 comments; 96.7% successfully categorised to a single primary topic.
Overall mood. Roughly 54.5% Positive, 41.1% Negative, 4.5% Neutral (positive:negative ≈ 1.33:1).
What students are saying
Finance students talk most about assessment and teaching practice. The single largest topic is Feedback (≈9.4% of all comments), which is negative overall (index −13.5) though slightly less negative than the sector baseline. Related assessment topics push in the same direction: Assessment methods (3.8%) and Marking criteria (3.2%) are both strongly negative, pointing to recurring needs for clearer expectations, consistent marking and useful, timely responses.
Teaching and curriculum feature prominently and are generally well‑regarded. Teaching Staff (8.0%) is notably positive (index +29.6), if a little below sector tone, while Delivery of teaching (7.4%) trends mildly positive and at sector. Comments on the Type and breadth of course content (5.8%) lean positive, but Module choice/variety (4.7%) is only slightly positive and sits well below sector on tone, suggesting students want more transparent option structures or coherently explained trade‑offs.
The “people and growth” side of the experience is a clear strength. Student support (5.0%) is positive and above sector tone; Student life (4.4%) and Career guidance/support (4.3%) are both strongly positive, with career support especially above sector. Personal development (2.0%) stands out with very strong sentiment (+64.3). Placements/fieldwork/trips (3.8%) are more positive here than sector by a wide margin, and students often credit structured experiences and clear links to learning outcomes.
Operational delivery is mixed. Organisation and management of the course (3.4%) trends positive and far above sector tone, but Scheduling/timetabling (2.5%) is a pain point and well below sector. Communication about course and teaching (1.3%) is close to neutral yet markedly better than sector, while Remote learning (1.8%) remains slightly negative and at sector. Elsewhere, Opportunities to work with other students (2.7%) is a weaker spot, often reflecting unclear group tasks, uneven participation or assessment alignment. Costs/value for money (1.8%) and Workload (1.2%) are more negative, as seen across the sector.
Top categories by share (Finance vs sector):
| Category | Section | Share % | Sector % | Δ pp | Sentiment idx | Δ vs sector |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feedback | Assessment and feedback | 9.4 | 7.3 | +2.1 | -13.5 | +1.6 |
| Teaching Staff | The teaching on my course | 8.0 | 6.7 | +1.3 | +29.6 | -5.9 |
| Delivery of teaching | The teaching on my course | 7.4 | 5.4 | +1.9 | +8.3 | -0.5 |
| Type & breadth of course content | Learning opportunities | 5.8 | 6.9 | -1.1 | +20.2 | -2.4 |
| Student support | Academic support | 5.0 | 6.2 | -1.2 | +20.7 | +7.5 |
| Module choice / variety | Learning opportunities | 4.7 | 4.2 | +0.5 | +4.7 | -12.7 |
| Student life | Learning community | 4.4 | 3.2 | +1.3 | +41.1 | +9.0 |
| Career guidance, support | Learning community | 4.3 | 2.4 | +1.9 | +47.5 | +17.4 |
| Learning resources | Learning resources | 4.0 | 3.8 | +0.2 | +20.5 | -1.0 |
| Assessment methods | Assessment and feedback | 3.8 | 3.0 | +0.8 | -26.1 | -2.4 |
Most negative categories (share ≥ 2%)
| Category | Section | Share % | Sector % | Δ pp | Sentiment idx | Δ vs sector |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marking criteria | Assessment and feedback | 3.2 | 3.5 | -0.3 | -43.9 | +1.8 |
| Scheduling/timetabling | Organisation and management | 2.5 | 2.9 | -0.3 | -37.0 | -20.5 |
| Assessment methods | Assessment and feedback | 3.8 | 3.0 | +0.8 | -26.1 | -2.4 |
| Opportunities to work with other students | Learning community | 2.7 | 2.0 | +0.8 | -15.4 | -16.5 |
| Feedback | Assessment and feedback | 9.4 | 7.3 | +2.1 | -13.5 | +1.6 |
| Module choice / variety | Learning opportunities | 4.7 | 4.2 | +0.5 | +4.7 | -12.7 |
| Delivery of teaching | The teaching on my course | 7.4 | 5.4 | +1.9 | +8.3 | -0.5 |
Most positive categories (share ≥ 2%)
| Category | Section | Share % | Sector % | Δ pp | Sentiment idx | Δ vs sector |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personal development | Learning community | 2.0 | 2.5 | -0.4 | +64.3 | +4.5 |
| Career guidance, support | Learning community | 4.3 | 2.4 | +1.9 | +47.5 | +17.4 |
| Student life | Learning community | 4.4 | 3.2 | +1.3 | +41.1 | +9.0 |
| Placements/fieldwork | Learning opportunities | 3.8 | 3.4 | +0.3 | +37.2 | +25.4 |
| Teaching Staff | Teaching | 8.0 | 6.7 | +1.3 | +29.6 | -5.9 |
| Library | Learning resources | 2.1 | 1.8 | +0.3 | +28.7 | +2.0 |
| Student support | Academic support | 5.0 | 6.2 | -1.2 | +20.7 | +7.5 |
What this means in practice
-
Make assessment clarity non‑negotiable. Publish annotated exemplars and checklist‑style rubrics for major assessments; agree and track a realistic service level for feedback turnaround; and calibrate markers on criteria with short norming sessions. These moves directly target the three biggest assessment pain points: Feedback, Assessment methods and Marking criteria.
-
Strengthen the operational rhythm. Protect the current strength in overall organisation by setting a clear change‑control window for timetables, naming an owner for schedule decisions, and maintaining a single source of truth for course communications. This mitigates Scheduling/timetabling frustrations while preserving the positive tone around Organisation and management.
-
Build on people‑centred strengths. Keep the focus on high‑impact human touchpoints—Teaching Staff responsiveness, Student support, and Career guidance—by making availability and expectations visible and by routing students quickly to the right support. Where group work is common, provide structured roles, interim checkpoints and transparent peer‑assessment to lift students’ experience of working with others.
-
Where placements/fieldwork/internships exist, treat them as a designed pathway: clear briefs, aligned learning outcomes, named mentors, and routine check‑ins. This maintains the unusually positive tone in this area.
Data at a glance (2018–2025)
- Top topics by share are stable: Feedback (≈9.4%), Teaching Staff (≈8.0%), Delivery of teaching (≈7.4%), Type & breadth of course content (≈5.8%), and Student support (≈5.0%).
- Delivery & ops cluster (placements/fieldwork, scheduling, organisation & management, course communications, remote learning) accounts for ~12.8% of all comments with mixed tone (organisation positive; scheduling negative).
- People & growth cluster (personal tutor, student support, teaching staff, availability of staff, delivery of teaching, personal development, student life) holds ~29.9% of comments and is strongly positive overall.
- Relative to sector, the largest positive sentiment differentials are in Organisation & management (+26.0), Placements/fieldwork (+25.4), Communication with supervisor/lecturer/tutor (+26.2; smaller share), and IT facilities (+36.9; smaller share). Areas below sector include Module choice/variety (−12.7), Opportunities to work with other students (−16.5), Scheduling/timetabling (−20.5), and Teaching Staff (−5.9).
- How to read the numbers. Each comment is assigned one primary topic; share is that topic’s proportion of all comments. Sentiment is calculated per sentence and summarised as an index from −100 (more negative than positive) to +100 (more positive than negative), then averaged at category level.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
Student Voice Analytics turns open-text survey comments into clear priorities you can act on. It tracks topics, sentiment and movement by year across the whole institution and down to fine‑grained levels (faculty, school, programme), so teams can focus on the highest‑impact categories like Feedback, Assessment methods, Teaching & Delivery, Scheduling and Organisation.
It also lets you prove change on a like‑for‑like basis with sector comparisons across CAH codes and by demographics (e.g., year of study, domicile, mode of study, campus/site, commuter status). You can segment by site/provider, cohort and year to target interventions where they will move sentiment most. Concise, anonymised theme summaries and representative comments make it easy to brief programme teams and external partners without trawling thousands of responses, and export‑ready outputs (web, deck, dashboard) help you share priorities and progress across the institution.
