We are merging. What do the students think?

Anyone who has been a sabbatical officer in a students’ union, including those who have only been in post since July, will have been asked the “what do the students think?” question in a university committee meeting.

Whilst this question can be well intentioned, it is generally asked as an afterthought or at worst, as a way for institutions to claim that students have been “consulted”.

Rather than expecting an SU officer to have telepathic abilities that can tap into the minds of 50,000 students in one go, perhaps the sector could do better by asking more specific, strategic questions of student leaders throughout a meeting or conversation.

That would help to avoid this all encompassing tokenistic question when the meeting has three minutes left to run.

News of the planned merger between the Universities of Kent and Greenwich – which is set to form the UK’s first so-called “super-university” – has reignited debate about the future of higher education.

The story has been framed in terms of finances, governance, and survival strategies in a challenging sector. But beneath the headlines there’s a more fundamental question about the future of the HE sector – what do mergers (or takeovers) mean for students?

There’s been a brutal merger

Having served as a students’ union officer during the merger of the Surrey Institute of Art & Design (SIAD) and the Kent Institute of Art & Design (KIAD), which created what is now the University for the Creative Arts, I know that the institutional picture is only half the story.

For students, the day-to-day realities of a merger are often unseen or unknown, yet the decisions being taken in the boardrooms will have a direct impact on the student experience in the here and now. For students this impact can feel disorienting, frustrating, and sometimes unjust.

So if mergers become more common in the UK, it is essential we consider what must be protected, what pitfalls to avoid, and how to centre and align the student experience throughout the process.

For many students, a merger is something that happens to them rather than with them. In my officer days, I saw how rumours spread faster than official communications. Would students’ degrees suddenly bear a different university’s name? Would their campus close? Would their specialist facilities be downgraded or moved?

The uncertainties created deep and understandable anxiety. Students invest not just money but identity in their institution – the crest on the graduation certificate, the reputation of their course, the traditions and culture of their campus are all things that students care deeply about. When that feels under threat, confidence quickly erodes.

At the same time, mergers can also open doors. Students might gain access to a broader community, richer networks, improved facilities, or new course combinations. At their best, mergers offer more than the sum of their parts.

But without deliberate planning, intention, and vision those opportunities risk being overshadowed by a sense of loss, grief, and resentment.

Protecting the student experience

Elsewhere on Wonkhe, Jim Dickinson has reviewed a slew of evidence from European HE mergers that suggests that students and their experience can often be forgotten.

Over the years, both in my officer role and in my subsequent career working with students’ unions and universities I’ve also seen a number of mergers in both FE and HE – and some non-negotiables emerge. If mergers are to succeed for students, certain protections must be in place.

Students facing institutional transitions need robust protections that secure both immediate interests and long-term prospects. Most fundamentally, they require absolute certainty about their academic identity – what name appears on their degree certificate and how employers will recognise their qualification. This represents years of investment and cannot be compromised during any transition.

Continuity must be maintained throughout the change process. Students enrolled expecting specific courses, teaching staff, and facilities. While some change may prove unavoidable, any modifications must be carefully phased, explained, and supported. Sudden disruptions undermine both confidence and academic progress.

Decision-making must include meaningful student representation, with SUs securing formal seats where critical choices are made. Student officers provide essential lived experience of how changes affect daily campus life, illuminating problems that might otherwise escape notice. Without that input, even well-intentioned plans can create unexpected hardships.

Communication must prioritise clarity over corporate messaging. Students need regular updates in plain language – rumours flourish in information vacuums. Even difficult news builds more trust through transparency than vague reassurances that later prove unfounded.

And student services must be protected throughout transitions. From housing support to mental health provision, these form essential infrastructure for wellbeing and academic success. Institutional change cannot excuse service decline – mergers should create opportunities for enhancement, ensuring students access improved rather than diminished support.

Pitfalls to avoid

Just as there are must-haves, there are also traps that repeat themselves if institutions aren’t careful:

• Telling students “everything will be bigger and better” without detail quickly breeds scepticism.
• Two students’ unions do not merge overnight. Campus traditions, identities, and ways of belonging require care and intentional integration. And the form will need to reflect the detail of what’s actually being proposed for central v local control in the merged institution.
• Mergers attract criticism, and student voice should not be dismissed as noise. Constructive dissent strengthens the process and open doors of opportunity.
• Restructuring can leave students unclear on who supports them or where to go for help which is a recipe for frustration and disengagement.
• Students are not just fee-payers – they are members of an academic community whose lived experience defines whether the merger succeeds.

When SIAD and KIAD merged, the stakes were high – two proud art institutions with distinct histories and cultures were being woven together. As a students’ union officer, I saw how much depended on whether students felt heard.

One of our biggest tasks was acting as translators, turning management decisions into clear updates for students, and carrying student concerns back into the boardroom. Where that worked, trust was built. Where it didn’t, myths and anxieties filled the void.

There were positives – new opportunities for collaboration across campuses, a stronger shared identity as a creative community, and eventually the foundation of a nationally recognised institution. But there were also scars – students who felt their campus was overlooked, courses that didn’t survive the transition, and cultural differences that took years to reconcile.

Mergers are about people, not just structures. Without investing in student confidence, the strongest governance model will still falter.

Looking ahead

Financial pressures mean Kent and Greenwich might just be the start of a period where institutions start to combine. If mergers are becoming the new normal, then so too must our commitment to protecting student experience. That means:

• Embedding student voice from the earliest planning stages
• Being realistic about what will change and what will not
• Investing in community-building so merged identities feel authentic rather than imposed
• Comparing provision and developing a clear agenda for “levelling up” on everything from service levels to academic policies
• Ensuring unions are resourced to play their role as advocates and communicators
• Students’ unions being proactive with their own merger, taking the bull by the horns and setting the tone for their respective institutions

University mergers will always make headlines, but their success will ultimately be judged not in board papers but in the experiences of students navigating lecture theatres, libraries, and union spaces.

I write this not only from memory of one merger, but from two decades of working alongside students’ unions and universities through periods of change and turnaround. Mergers can be moments of renewal, bringing opportunities that neither institution could offer alone.

If higher education can learn one lesson, it should be that numbers may drive mergers, but people determine whether they succeed. For students, success is measured not by the size of the new institution, but by whether they feel their education, experience, and identity remain secure throughout the process.