What are students actually saying about Costs Value for money (NSS 2018–2025)?

Students’ comments on costs and value are overwhelmingly negative across the dataset. Tone is strongly unfavourable overall (sentiment index −46.7), with full-time and younger students notably more critical than part-time and mature students. Views are negative across broad subject areas, with the least negative tones in combined/general, psychology, engineering, and medicine/dentistry. Apprenticeships look far less negative, though numbers are very small.

Scope: UK NSS open-text comments tagged to Costs Value for money across academic years 2018–2025.
Volume: 5,994 comments (≈1.6% of all comments); 100.0% sentiment coverage.
Overall mood: 9.3% Positive, 88.3% Negative, 2.4% Neutral (sentiment index −46.7).

What are students saying in this category?

The category is dominated by negative sentiment: 88.3% of comments are negative, only 9.3% positive.
Mode and age matter. Full-time students (78.7% of comments) are much more negative (index −50.4) than part-time (−33.8). Younger respondents are also more negative (−50.2) than mature (−39.1).
By subject (CAH1), negativity is broad-based. The most negative tones appear in historical/philosophical/religious studies (−52.9), creative arts (−50.4) and social sciences (−51.4). Combined/general studies (−37.8), psychology (−41.5), engineering (−41.1) and medicine/dentistry (−39.6) are less negative but still below neutral.
Differences by sex and disability status are small (indices around −46 to −48). Ethnicity shows variation: Mixed ethnicity is more negative (−52.8) while Black students are less negative (−31.8), though all groups remain net negative.
Apprenticeships show near-neutral tone (−1.2) but with only 13 comments; treat cautiously.

Breakdown and benchmarks

By mode of study

Mode	n	Share %	Positive %	Negative %	Sentiment idx
Full-time	4716	78.7	7.1	90.6	−50.4
Part-time	1176	19.6	16.8	80.4	−33.8
Apprenticeship	13	0.2	46.2	53.8	−1.2
Unspecified	80	1.3	22.5	76.3	−31.7

Broad subject area (CAH1) — top 8 by volume (excluding “unknown”)

Broad subject (CAH1)	n	Share %	Sentiment idx
Social sciences (CAH15)	557	9.3	−51.4
Business and management (CAH17)	458	7.6	−49.0
Subjects allied to medicine (CAH02)	418	7.0	−43.8
Design, and creative and performing arts (CAH25)	408	6.8	−50.4
Historical, philosophical and religious studies (CAH20)	331	5.5	−52.9
Psychology (CAH04)	277	4.6	−41.5
Computing (CAH11)	276	4.6	−45.0
Combined and general studies (CAH23)	274	4.6	−37.8

Notes on numbers: Sentiment indices run from −100 to +100. Very small groups (e.g., Apprenticeship, n=13) can fluctuate substantially; interpret with caution.

What this means in practice

Make costs visible and predictable

Publish a simple “total cost of study” view per programme: what fees cover, typical extra costs, when they occur, and what’s optional.
Adopt a “no surprises” cost policy with minimum notice periods for any additional spend.

Reduce out-of-pocket spend at known pressure points

Prioritise areas with the most negative tone (e.g., creative arts, social sciences, historical/philosophical subjects) for cost audits of materials, trips, specialist spaces and licences.
Expand equipment/kit loans, print/material allowances, and software access to reduce personal purchases.

Target the groups with the lowest value perceptions

For full-time and younger students, front-load information on included provisions, travel/placement reimbursements, and hardship routes; schedule support before cost-heavy weeks.
Use short pulse checks after high-cost activities and close the loop quickly.

Tighten support and reimbursement operations

Standardise cost guidance in module handbooks and the VLE; keep a single source of truth.
Set service targets for reimbursements and track turnaround time publicly.

Learn from pockets of better tone

Where programmes achieve less negative perceptions (e.g., combined/general, psychology, engineering, medicine/dentistry), capture and share practices that minimise student spend or clarify value.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

Pinpoint where value-for-money concerns are sharpest by mode, age, subject (CAH), ethnicity, disability and sex, and monitor movement over time.
Drill from institutional to school/department cohorts; produce concise anonymised summaries for programme teams and finance/operations.
Provide like-for-like comparisons across CAH codes and demographics, and segment by campus/site or cohort.
Export-ready tables and narratives for quick briefing and action tracking.

Data at a glance (2018–2025)

Volume: 5,994 comments; 100.0% sentiment coverage (≈1.6% of all comments).
Overall mood: 9.3% Positive, 88.3% Negative, 2.4% Neutral (sentiment index −46.7).
Composition: 78.7% Full-time; 19.6% Part-time. 70.1% Young; 28.5% Mature.