Whatever one thinks of the introduction of tuition fees and student loans, there is no denying that they have drawn the attention of higher education officials to the needs of students in a way that had never been seen before.

The creation of the Office for Students (OfS) is one result of this reorientation. But six years later, it is safe to say that we still find it challenging to give students’ interests a central role.

Part of this is that ‘the student interest’ is a complicated term. It’s not a term that students generally use to describe the bundle of needs, wants and experiences they expect from their universities and the wider sector, but they do notice when their interests are not adequately addressed.

And we recognize that our understanding and communication of student interests has not always been strong or consistent enough to make our policies visible to students.

In response, we have thought a lot about the idea of ​​student advocacy, both internally and in numerous conversations with students and representatives of the sector. Our recent review of public bodies, led by our current interim chair, Sir David Behan, also reflected this and emphasised that we need to ensure that students are much more involved in the work we do.

A paradox is evident: the way students talk about their experiences of higher education is very reminiscent of descriptions of consumer-provider relationships. Yet students are almost unanimous in rejecting the idea of ​​themselves as “consumers of higher education.”

We at OfS are well aware of the market-driven burden that a term like ‘consumer’ brings with it, but frankly it seems to capture well important aspects of what we need to think about in defining and defending student interests.

What we have heard is that students talk about abstract concepts like fairness, honesty And Affiliationbut in a way that consumers do with concrete experiences they are having right now. And all too often they feel like they are being shortchanged.

To be clear, it is obvious that both students and well-meaning providers want mutually respectful cooperation. But as a regulator, we also know that this is not always the case.

When students are dissatisfied, it is not just because reality has not lived up to their expectations – they are generally quite realistic – but because reality does not match promises.

They tell us that they do not receive the teaching hours they were promised; that their work is not graded; that they are not offered timely support; that they lack the time, resources and opportunities to participate in the extra-curricular activities highlighted in the prospectus; and, above all, that institutions do not respond quickly and effectively to their complaints.

These are parts of the student experience that involve the delivery of services that students can very easily judge for themselves. But there is also a potentially related but distinct set of experiences where judgements about the value of higher education offerings cannot be made spontaneously or by the student alone or without significant professional input.

While anyone can judge whether a sofa is good quality by testing it before buying it, this is not really the case in the education sector. Students can enjoy an entertaining lecture, only to find afterwards that they cannot remember any of it, or that the lecture was outdated or misleading. A student can be delighted with a first-class degree, only to later discover that their university has a reputation with employers for awarding too many degrees.

So we want to change our approach in three different aspects of our student engagement: what does the OfS need to know about students’ experiences before, during and after higher education to do our regulatory work properly? What opportunities do we offer students and their representatives to tell us what we need to know? And what do we think students need to know before, during and after their higher education?

We’ve learned to be cautious and not to overpromise, so we’re taking our time with this work. We’re listening carefully to student opinions, expanding our use of surveys and focus groups to develop a more nuanced understanding of student experiences, and we hope to establish internships where students can gain insight. And we’ve extended the terms of our current student panel members and had productive conversations about the future role of the panel.

Nor do we intend to interfere where there is no cause for concern. The benefit of our greater and more consistent student involvement is that we can see more clearly where we can and should drive improvements through regulation.

If we are to ensure the fairness, honesty and belonging that both students and staff crave, our primary focus must always be the quality of learning and teaching. We will work much more closely with students in assessing quality because we know this is a central aspect of the student experience.

We will also try to make a noticeable improvement in students’ lives in other areas, even if we do not hold all the cards.

For example, if we conclude that students expect decent accommodation within a reasonable distance of campus – a key element of belonging for many students – it would only be fair to expect providers to take action accordingly. We have no regulatory power over private providers of student accommodation, but we still have a role to play, if only to give the sector and government an honest report on the state of students’ experiences and the likely impact on academic outcomes.

By putting the protection of students’ interests at the heart of our next strategy – conceptually and in very practical terms – we can ensure that we get the things that matter to students regulated.

John Blake is Director of Fair Access and Participation in the Office for Students. This is an edited version of a speech he gave at the Students’ Union members’ conference in Manchester on 14 August. You can read the full version here.