At a conference in the mid-2010s an American colleague described UK student services and support as “an emerging profession.” He was wrong: universities have always supported students beyond the classroom. From Oxford dons to Bologna priests, pastoral care was never a bolt-on or mission drift. It was a crucial part of enabling students, especially those from challenging backgrounds, to succeed.
Where he may have been right was in the contrast between his side of the Atlantic and mine. The United States has built structured, well-resourced systems of student support, while in the UK our approach remains patchy and ill defined. A decade later, demand has continued to grow exponentially. Expectations are higher, university services are stretched, and public health provision is thinner.
The Hogwarts problem
Have universities become places where students expect to be looked after as much as taught? At times, it feels that way. Today many students’, and their parents’, earliest frame of reference for support in a residential education setting comes from what they saw or read happen for Harry Potter.
Students paying fees understandably expect a full package: excellent teaching, clear employment prospects, and a safety net that catches every wobble in closed, secure setting, with or without owls.
On top of that, many of today’s students have grown up talking openly about mental health on Instagram, TikTok, and in group chats. That cultural shift is a win for stigma reduction, and means more students are willing to ask for help in a context where expectations were already increased.
Add in a more diverse student body, and the equation is simple: higher expectations + greater volume and diversity of students + greater willingness to express need = demand growing exponentially.
At the sharpest end, universities are managing cases of student suicide, with all of its devastating consequences for families, friends and staff. The stakes could not be higher.
We are also picking up the pieces from past cuts elsewhere. In Wales and England cuts to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) since 2010 mean many students are arriving at university with needs that have not been addressed before.
The opportunity to get it right
Providers across all four UK nations and beyond are grappling with the same pressures. The answer lies not in expending capacity and energy on demonstrative quality marks and badges, but in creating real-world systemic change rooted in regulation, leadership, defined boundaries, curriculum design, and rapid adoption of AI.
Make mental health a strategic priority: The first step is leadership. Mental health and wellbeing must be owned at the highest level of every university. The Universities UK Stepchange framework made this clear in 2016, and it still holds true today. Vice chancellors and governing bodies need to lead visible strategies, set measurable goals, and proactively monitor progress.
This is not about box-ticking. It is about embedding wellbeing in strategy so decisions about teaching, estates, finance, and partnerships all factor it in, just like they do health and safety. This commitment sends a powerful signal: facilitating good mental health is not peripheral. It is part of the core mission and enables better outcomes.
This needs to be set against formal regulation with common terminology, standards and risk measures; moving beyond the voluntary and variance we see now, setting common boundaries to what the sector provides and what can be expected for all.
Set boundaries and build healthcare partnerships: Universities are not healthcare providers, and pretending otherwise is not sustainable. Equally, it is not realistic to say “this is not our role.” Students and their families, often in crisis, need a sympathetic explanation of what support universities can and cannot provide, and a clear route to accessible health services.
That means developing formal partnerships with health providers. The South East Wales Mental Health Partnership shows what is possible. Since 2019 this partnership has been creating bespoke referral pathways, training university staff in triage, and coordinating with NHS colleagues. The partnership has managed demand while helping the NHS plan for the pressure created by a time-limited, transient student population.
The structures of health services differ across the four UK nations, but the approach is transferable. Formal, regional partnerships are the only sustainable way to respond.
Embed wellbeing in the curriculum: Wellbeing can be built into curriculum design in ways that both support students and improve academic outcomes. Group projects foster connection and reduce isolation. Linking assignments to real-world challenges boosts motivation. Even something as simple as coordinating deadlines across modules can contribute to a healthier, more balanced experience. Peer support can be impactful for everyone involved.
This reflects what many modern workplaces already expect: collaboration, resilience, and balance. Embedding wellbeing into learning design is part of preparing students for life after graduation.
Use AI wisely: Around 80 per cent of teenagers aged 13–17 have used generative AI tools like ChatGPT. In developed economies there is growing evidence that this demographic will look to AI for emotional support with good outcomes, so it seems clear future students will look to AI first for help. A response which ensures strained provision adapts to demand change is critical.
Handled properly, AI could transform student services. Chatbots can answer routine questions, signpost students to resources, and triage requests before they reach staff. This is not an opportunity to cut spending; it is an opportunity to repurpose skilled staff enabling focus on the most complex cases and multi-agency referrals, or in other words, the work where human expertise is most impactful.
The danger is that we repeat past sector mistakes: commissioning bespoke systems slowly and at high cost. Instead, universities should move quickly to adopt and embed proven tools ensuring people, not algorithms, make the biggest difference.
What’s next?
Universities aren’t Hogwarts – and they need to be explicit about what they can and cannot do. It is possible to do this in a positive way and work with partners to build systems that meet new demand appropriately.
That means leadership taking a proactive strategic approach, clear and compassionate boundaries, embedding wellbeing in the curriculum, and smart use of AI to manage resource and demand. It also means governments in each part of the UK moving beyond voluntary, third-party charters – to frameworks with teeth.
Without that shift, staff will continue to be asked for miracles without a wand, and universities will continue to be held responsible when those miracles don’t happen.
Great read! I agree with much, but unsure that we really need mandatory legislative frameworks for student support? Forcing institutions to “show their best side” for TEF and REF ratings is one thing, but doing it for student support surely would require good outcomes on metrics (e.g. counselling improvement/recovery rates) which could encourage universities to avoid complex cases & move back to placing much of the onus on the health service. There is also a hell of a lot related to wellbeing that is out of university hands – cost of living, NHS, regional inequalities – which could be difficult… Read more »