What are students actually saying about General facilities (NSS 2018–2025)?

Students are broadly positive about general facilities. The tone is consistently warm across large volumes, with some clear differences by learner type and mode of study that are actionable.

Scope: UK NSS open-text comments tagged “General facilities” across academic years 2018–2025.
Volume: 6,639 comments; 100.0% with sentiment scored.
Overall mood: 72.0% Positive, 25.4% Negative, 2.6% Neutral (sentiment index +40.1; positive:negative ≈ 2.8:1).

What students are saying in this category

• Overall sentiment is strong: nearly three in four comments are positive, yielding a sentiment index of +40.1 across 6,639 comments.
• There is a notable difference by learner type. Young students are markedly more positive than mature students (index +42.9 vs +25.0). Part-time learners are the least positive (index +18.0) compared with full-time peers (+41.4).
• Disabled students are positive overall (+36.6) but sit modestly below peers not identifying as disabled (+41.5). By sex, male students are more positive than female students (+44.7 vs +36.4).
• By subject group (CAH1), tone is high in Business & Management (+53.1), Media (+47.7) and Computing (+47.1), and lower in Psychology (+31.1), Physical Sciences (+31.2) and Subjects Allied to Medicine (+32.7) where volumes are substantial. Comment volume is spread widely, with the largest named share from Design/Creative Arts (18.3%) alongside Engineering (7.3%), Allied to Medicine (6.3%), Computing (6.1%) and Business (5.8%).
• Across ethnicity groups the tone is positive throughout, with indices typically in the +31.6 to +43.5 range.

Trend & benchmarks

No year-by-year data are available in this extract; segment snapshots are shown below.

Demographic snapshot (selected groups)

Subject areas (CAH1) where tone is higher/lower (n ≥ 100)

Note: Rows labelled “Unknown/Unspecified” are excluded from the table above.

What this means in practice

• Keep the baseline strong and visible
  • Publish simple service levels for facilities (e.g., response times, cleanliness checks) and report performance monthly.
  • Use regular walkarounds with logging to catch small faults before they become irritants.
• Close the gap for mature and part-time learners
  • Extend access hours where feasible; make evening/weekend availability and access routes explicit.
  • Provide clear wayfinding, storage and “quick-stop” spaces (hot water/microwaves, lockers) that suit commuting patterns.
• Improve accessibility by design
  • Co-audit facilities with disabled students; prioritise fixes that remove friction (entrances, lifts, toilets, assistive tech).
  • Offer accessible booking for rooms/equipment and signal availability in real time.
• Target high-traffic subject hubs
  • Prioritise preventative maintenance and capacity management in buildings serving Design/Creative Arts, Engineering, Computing and Allied to Medicine.
  • Use short pulse checks to understand what’s driving lower sentiment in Psychology/Physical Sciences contexts and act visibly.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

• See topic and sentiment over time, and drill from institution to school/department to pinpoint where facilities are delighting or frustrating students.
• Make like-for-like comparisons by CAH subject, mode, domicile and other demographics, and segment by site/campus or cohort.
• Share concise, anonymised summaries and export-ready tables for estates, timetabling and student services teams.

Data at a glance (2018–2025)

• Volume: 6,639 comments; 100.0% with sentiment scored.
• Overall mood: 72.0% Positive, 25.4% Negative, 2.6% Neutral; sentiment index +40.1 (≈2.8:1 positive:negative).
• Largest named subject contributors: Design/Creative Arts (18.3%), Engineering (7.3%), Subjects Allied to Medicine (6.3%), Computing (6.1%), Business & Management (5.8%).