The relevance of this study stems from the need to shift from a declarative approach to evidence-based management of educational quality in higher education institutions. In this context, infrastructure is viewed not as a secondary element but as a fundamental factor shaping student loyalty and success – particularly in pedagogical universities with a high proportion of out-of-town students. For the first time, the contribution of each infrastructure component has been quantitatively assessed using a representative sample, enabling the formulation of targeted and economically sound management decisions. Purpose – to assess student satisfaction with university infrastructure, identify problem areas (dormitories, catering, psychological support), and measure their impact on loyalty. Scientific significance: This study provides the first comprehensive assessment – based on a representative sample (N = 1,575) from a pedagogical university – of the contribution made by various infrastructure components (dormitories, dining services, psychological support, digital environment, and sports facilities) to student loyalty. A polarization of assessments was quantitatively demonstrated (high levels of digitalization versus a crisis in living infrastructure), alongside a moderate positive correlation (r=0.48) between living conditions and loyalty. It was found that students living in dormitories are 3.4 times more likely to state they would not choose the university again, a finding that refines and complements data from similar studies. The methodological value lies in the piloting of an original questionnaire and the application of a combined approach (quantitative analysis and content analysis of open-ended responses) that can be replicated at other higher education institutions. The practical significance of the work is that it provides a reliable empirical basis for reevaluating infrastructure management priorities and proposes concrete, measurable steps to improve students' quality of life – factors that directly influence their loyalty and academic success.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Trapitsin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: