Examines participation and completion factors in higher education, suggesting improvements for equitable student paths.
This paper examines participation and non-completion as dynamic, system-level processes rather than fixed or isolated outcomes. Focusing on the UK while drawing on wider international evidence, the paper traces the historical development of higher education policy from massification and marketisation to contemporary outcomes-based regulation. The paper synthesises literature on student finance, regulatory reform, mental health, inequality, digitalisation, artificial intelligence, social media, student employment and alternative pathways, including apprenticeships, entrepreneurship and portfolio careers. It argues that widening participation initiatives have helped expanding access, yet, have been lagging behind the changes in the social, ethical, economic, historical and technological conditions required for students to remain, belong, engage and complete higher education. It shows that contemporary students increasingly make decisions under conditions of financial pressure, time poverty, opportunity overload and labour market uncertainty. These pressures do not operate in isolation; rather, they interact across macro-level structures, meso-level institutional practices and micro-level student experiences. The paper proposes a multi-level circular framework that conceptualises participation and completion as ongoing processes shaped by feedback loops between policy, institutions, labour markets and student decision-making. In doing so, it challenges deficit explanations of non-completion and highlights the need for higher education systems to move beyond a narrow focus on completion as an endpoint, suggesting that policy and practice should support sustainable, flexible and equitable student trajectories that reflect the complexity of contemporary tertiary education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Agwunobi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: