Introduction

Self-reported student experience has become an important indicator in assessments of institutional performance in the promotion of equitable student outcomes in HE (Student Experience Project, 2022). Developing a common knowledge and understanding of the different dimensions of student experience, and how they are determined, is critical given students with higher levels of satisfaction and sense of belonging perform better academically and are more likely to complete their course (Grayson, 2004; Pedler et al., 2022). The considerable financial and personal investment associated with university education means universities are committed to a transformational experience with positive outcomes.

This is particularly so for less advantaged students, yet earlier work in the Australian context—the focus of this paper—suggests that they tend to report lower levels of satisfaction with their HE experience (Li & Carroll, 2020). Differences have been attributed to varying expectations and perceptions associated with students’ background, including schooling experience (Tsiligiris & Hill, 2021), their less developed cultural capital which can pose challenges with crossing the boundary into university (O’Shea, 2020), and adjusting to its often-unfamiliar culture and practices (Meuleman et al., 2015; Thomas, 2012).

In a recent study, Phua et al. (2023) found that personality differences, as measured by the trait effect, accounts for nearly one-quarter of the variation in self-reported satisfaction among PhD students. This work suggests that student satisfaction measures are less variable than their usage would suggest and that they may also more accurately reflect the accumulated experience of students, rather than objective assessments of degree experience and quality.

The above research focus on student background raises the question of how it interacts with institutional settings to influence reported experience (Jones, 2018), particularly in the case of less advantaged groups. This is an especially important issue in Australia as policymakers and universities broaden their focus on equity issues from pre-access and access efforts in recent decades towards student success and retention, with research also focusing on the impact of students’ equity status on such outcomes (Li & Jackson, 2023; Li et al., 2023).

The diversity of student cohorts and students’ backgrounds could be a reason for students’ perceptions of their learning experience to differ across universities. For instance, students at well-resourced secondary schools may tend to have higher expectations of their university study, and it is possible that, consequently, these students have lower satisfaction assessment of their university experience. Despite these concerns, there is little research on the impact of student background characteristics on self-reported assessments of university experience.

The present study addresses such gaps by focusing on the following research questions: (i) how do students’ secondary school background affect various aspects of their student experience? and (ii) how do students’ personal characteristics, university study factors affect various aspects of their student experience? These questions were addressed using student experience data for 24,292 domestic undergraduate students located at seven universities across Australia, all entering their institution via secondary school. The following sections review relevant literature, outline the study’s methodology, and present and discuss the study’s findings, with concluding remarks including study limitations and directions for future research.

Background

Student equity in Australian HE

Equity and inclusion feature prominently as drivers of the strategic agenda of higher education (HE) sectors worldwide as governments strive to widen participation in post-secondary education for all students. In Australia, the latest review of HE—the Australian Universities Accord Review—has placed a critical emphasis on achieving parity in access, experience, and outcomes among all students (Australian Government, 2024). This draws on over 30 years of Australian HE policy that focuses on demographic groups who are traditionally underrepresented in HE, termed “equity groups.” Historically, equity group members have seen reduced HE access, participation, and graduation outcomes compared to the “non-equity” population, defined as the majority demographic who are not classified in at least one equity group (Tomaszewski et al., 2020). The principal HE equity groups in Australia are as follows: people from low socio-economic status (LSES) background; people with disability; people from non-English-speaking backgrounds (NESB); people from regional and remote areas; and Indigenous (Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander–First Nations) Australians (Harvey et al., 2016). The reasons for their under-representation in HE are varied and in some cases intersecting. They may relate to financially disadvantaged students having relatively poorly developed cultural capital and less familiarity with HE processes and systems, negatively impacting on their confidence and capacity to enroll and succeed in HE (Harvey et al., 2018). Furthermore, their limited social capital may also mean fewer role models and peers to motivate and aspire them to pursue HE and assist them in navigating the complex admission processes into university (Cardak et al., 2015).

While the inclusion of equity students in HE is considered critical for individual wellbeing and success, the Accord Review has emphasized that the requirement for an effective policy response for equity groups also resides in the broader national context of bridging skill gaps which emerge in an economy where up to 55% of all jobs in 2050 are projected to require an HE qualification (Australian Government, 2024). This has provided a further impetus to ongoing efforts to focus on student retention and success in higher education and the drivers and determinants of student experience and performance.

Student experience in HE

Student experience is recognized as spanning multiple aspects, including learning environment, engagement with academic staff and peers, extra-curricular activities, support and mentoring, and learner resources (see Benckendorff et al., 2009; Weerasinghe & Fernando, 2017). Reported sense of belonging is another important dimension whereby students feel integrated into university life and their studies hold purpose (Meehan & Howells, 2019), leading to greater engagement and student experience (Gillen-O’Neel, 2019; Maunder, 2018). Irrespective of their purpose, HE systems operationalize a relatively well-defined set of indicators for quantifying and reporting on aggregate student performance (Pitman et al., 2020). These range from macro measures, such as retention rates, to more granular measures of student engagement and performance such as class attendance, estimates of time spent viewing online course material (Mandernach, 2015), and self-reported measures of student experience (Social Research Centre, 2022).

Of these measures, self-reported student experience indicators are necessarily the most subjective and are often associated with factors beyond the control or ready quantification of enrolling institutions. This complex interaction of factors indicates that assessments and comparisons of institutional performance in relation to the student experience may be fraught, particularly in Australian HE which stratifies undergraduate enrolment across institutions by geography, equity status, and prior academic achievement (Chesters & Watson, 2013; Koshy, 2016).

There are many influences on student experience, including sector-wide factors (e.g., competition levels, student cohort characteristics), external factors (e.g., government policies on HE funding and student income support, overall economic conditions, and technological change [Benckendorff et al., 2009]), and institution-related factors (e.g., budget, structure, location). These influences on student experience exist at different stages across the HE journey, including pre-university, during university, and post-university (Jones, 2018). Student-specific factors, such as demographic and socio-economic characteristics and school background, are explored below.

Student experience and personal characteristics

Theorizing on cultural capital, Bourdieu (1986) suggests that HE’s distinct culture can reproduce inequality as it creates barriers to participation for equity groups who are unfamiliar with its norms, values and cues, and who lack the professional and social connections to help with decoding and building confidence in navigating HE’s different systems and processes (Meuleman et al., 2015). The disparities between HE and their personal life and experiences can lead to difficulties with adjusting to life at university and incite feelings of isolation and an inability to fit in (Gale & Parker, 2011; Kezar, 2011), leading to poor student experiences and the need for strategies to quickly socialize students into HE (Brooman & Darwent, 2014; Habel et al., 2016; Wrench et al., 2013). Further, equity students’ relative lack of financial support for attending university and increased financial pressure during studies can also impact on experience and outcomes (Li & Carroll, 2020; Meuleman et al., 2015). LSES students can experience psychological barriers while at university, such as low well-being, a lack of self-efficacy and fear of failure, which can adversely affect their experience and outcomes (Jury et al., 2017). For students with disability, their experience at university can be marred by perceptions of bias, such as stereotypical and negative viewpoints among peers and staff; marginalization; the curriculum; or sense of belonging (see McGregor et al., 2016).

Indeed, Li and Carroll (2020) found that while most Australian students felt they were well-supported at university and generally satisfied with their experience across the key dimensions of learning engagement, quality of teaching, learning resources, institutional support, and skills development, NESB students and students with disability reported lower levels of satisfaction across these areas. Further, Indigenous students, students with disability and regional/remote students were more likely to consider leaving university in the short-term. Li and Jackson (2023) also reported lower levels of satisfaction among students with disability, and while some equity groups expressed broad satisfaction with their university experience, all but NESB students reported they were more likely to dropout compared to their peers.

Australian studies have also indicated that reported student experience varies by gender with differences relating to service provision and reported self-efficacy. For example, Grebennikov and Skaines (2009) found that female students placed a higher importance on university services than male students, including in relation to specific areas such as instructional clarity and the efficiency of administration. Lower levels of self-efficacy have also been reported among female students, after controlling for academic achievement (Hitches et al., 2022). Lower self-efficacy in female students studying Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) subjects have been attributed to factors that manifest themselves across the study lifecycle, including course and study motivations, learning preferences, and learning culture (Fisher et al., 2020). Interestingly, Li and Jackson (2023) found female students studying STEM had higher rates of satisfaction across a range of indicators, except learner engagement. Age differences are also reported with mature age students (25 years and older) tending to display slightly lower levels of overall satisfaction and reduced levels of learner engagement (Li & Jackson, 2023). Such variances in student experience may be conditioned by their increased likelihood of being enrolled part-time and in online or mixed study modes (Heagney & Benson, 2017).

Student experience and school background

Educational disadvantage begins prior to university, both in terms of academic preparation for, and knowledge of, HE entry pathways, with implications for outcomes and reported student experience at university (Li & Jackson, 2023; Tomaszewski et al., 2020). This is particularly true in relation to the direct transition from school to university, where secondary education background exerts a strong influence on HE participation and performance. Li and Dockery’s (2015) study on school background effects confirmed that prior (at school) academic achievement, proxied by the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR), was a strong determinant of the academic performance of first year students, confirming a broad finding identified elsewhere (for a discussion, see: Marks, 2015).

However, the influence of school background extends beyond academic preparation. Most notably, this extends to reduced participation among government school students in Australian HE, even after controlling for secondary academic background (Li & Dockery, 2015). To a large extent, this reflects the self-reinforcing nature of advantage in the school system, where the expectation of HE participation is cultivated among students in an environment of high teacher and parental expectation (Wu & Bai, 2015; Zhang et al., 2011; Dockery et al., 2022). Recent work highlights the importance of both socio-economic and academic composition of secondary school populations in determining academic achievement in Australia, with a key finding being that the overall socio-economic status of a school affects students’ chances of reaching minimum standards (Sciffer et al., 2022). This phenomenon is not unique to Australia, but one exacerbated by its school funding system which provides government funding to a relatively large Catholic and independent sector, who retain their capacity to charge fees, resulting in one of the highest levels of socio-economic segregation in the OECD group of countries, especially in comparison to New Zealand and some provinces in Canada where under similar funding arrangements, schools cannot charge fees (Bonnor et al., 2021). The resulting segregations in secondary education—both socio-economic and academic—are significant factors in non-government schools being more successful in enabling students to transition into HE sectors (Birch & Miller, 2007; Li & Dockery, 2015; Win & Miller, 2005).

Given these findings, it might appear intuitive to expect that university students who attended non-government schools will report higher levels of satisfaction given research showing that a relatively positive anticipated sense of university experience being associated with higher levels of interpersonal interaction and satisfaction in university settings (Wong & Chapman, 2023), while the expectations of equity students indicates a focus on perceived risk and knowledge-gaps in their preparation for university (Raciti, 2019). However, recent work by Cook et al. (2023) provides evidence that the opposite holds. Drawing on Webb et al. (2017), who found that state school students were more likely to perceive their choice to attend university as positive in the first instance, they hypothesized that state school students were less likely to express dissatisfaction with their university studies. Testing this, and other hypothesis, using data from the UK’s National Student Survey (NSS), they were unable to reject to the hypothesis, with a statistically significant effect between state school attendance and a lower probability of expressing dissatisfaction identified.

Methodology

Participants, procedures, and measures

The study drew on three data sets: first, data from a national student survey of the student experience and, second, administrative data on admissions and enrolment (the student data), both sourced directly from participating universities. The third dataset aggregated school characteristics (school data) and was sourced from the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA).

Student data

The student data set was sought via a customized, email request to 39 public and private universities in Australia. This included the 2016–2020 response files from the Student Experience Survey (SESurv), a national data collection that examines the experience for students enrolled into Australian HE institutions (Social Research Centre, 2022). The SESurv is administered online annually, collecting data from all undergraduate and postgraduate university students in Australia in their first or final year of study. The request was limited to domestic undergraduates who had entered university as school-leavers. Universities linked response records in their SESurv data files with administrative data on respondents’ secondary school background, individual characteristics, and enrollment. Secondary school data included an identifier for secondary school attended and a measure of academic achievement in their final school year, measured by the ATAR. ATAR indicates the percentile ranking of a student in their State, based on a weighted average of subject marks for the year, scaled for relative student performance in each subject. Ultimately, seven HE institutions agreed to participate in the study.

Data on individual characteristics included gender, age, and first-in-family status (where a student has no parent or guardian who had attended university). Students’ socio-economic and rural/regional status were determined by residential postcode. Further, there were indicators for Indigenous status; disability and NESB. Data on academic enrolment included mode of undertaking study (wholly online/partly online/none online), enrolment type (full-time/part-time), course undertaken/field of education, double degree status (e.g., Law/Commerce; Engineering/Science), and an indicator for first or final year of study.

School data

School data included data on school type (government or non-government), socio-economic status of a school’s aggregate student population (measured by Australia’s Index of Community Socio-economic Advantage), and staff-to-student ratios and other measures of school resourcing (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2023). The addition of measures of school socio-economic status and school resourcing data allow the effects of school peers’ socio-economic status and relative resourcing across schools to be disentangled, in addition to school sector effects.

Measures of student experience

The main outcomes of interest related to the nine indicators of student experience collected in the SESurv, including self-reported risk of dropout. The measures gauged student satisfaction with: overall educational experience, teaching quality, sense of belonging to institution, learner engagement, quality of teaching spaces, learner resources, student support, skills development, and whether they had considered leaving their institution (risk of dropout). Each was measured using a five-point Likert scale (e.g., for sense of belonging, 1 = “Not at all” to 5 = “Very much”). The student satisfaction measures were then coded into binary outcomes, with responses of 4 “Quite a bit” or 5 “Very much” taking on the value of 1 and all other responses recorded as 0.

Table 1 provides a summary of the study cohort, with sub-samples for government and non-government schools. The sample’s characteristics depended on both the propensity of students from various backgrounds to enter university and complete the SESurv. In terms of representativeness, most students (55.2%) attended non-government schools, compared to their 35.5% share of national secondary school enrolments (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2023). Unsurprisingly, the average socio-economic status score for school attended was higher than the national median of 1000 for both government (1061.64) and non-government (1106.95) schools, while the mean ATAR of around 85.27 was considerably higher than the average expected ATAR of 70.00 among school leavers in New South Wales, Australia’s most populated state (Universities Admissions Centre, 2023). There were relatively more female students, and the average age of 19 years confirms the sample’s skew towards first-year respondents. Most students tended to be enrolled full-time and on on-campus. The proportion of equity group students reflected the overall under-representation of these students in HE (Koshy, 2020).

Table 1 Summary of sample characteristics
Full size table

Analysis

Binary logistic regression models were developed to evaluate the student experience outcomes. The primary explanatory variables were the student characteristic and school background variables reported in Table 1, in addition to dummy variables for institution and field of education effects. Analyses were conducted using Stata version 17.

Results

Means and standard deviations for student responses on student experience are presented in Table 2. Around three-quarters of students were satisfied with their overall educational experience. When disaggregated by school sector, the proportion of students satisfied with their educational experience was marginally lower in government schools (74%), compared to non-government schools (76%). This pattern generally held for the other measures of student experience, with higher proportions of students in non-government schools indicating satisfaction, compared to those in government schools. Another observation that can be made is the relatively lower proportions of students indicating satisfaction with sense of belonging to their institution, learner engagement, student support, and interactions with other students. Finally, around 16% of students indicated that they considered leaving their institution. Proportions of those who considered leaving their institution were similar across government and non-government schools.

Table 2 Mean levels of student experience
Full size table

Secondary school background and student experience

Table 3 presents the binary logistic regression models for student experience. Average marginal effects for the logistic regression models were estimated and are presented in Table 3. The association with school background was mixed. Generally, differences between students by school attended were muted, although students from non-government schools had a slightly higher probability than students from government schools of being satisfied. Looking at individual dimensions of student experience, undergraduates from non-government school backgrounds were slightly more likely to be satisfied in terms of learner engagement, teaching spaces, and learner resources, respectively. Individual school variables had a mixed effect on student responses. School socio-economic status (standardized at a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1) was negatively correlated with reported satisfaction in sense of belonging, student support, skills development, and the risk of dropout. The estimated effect sizes are very small, at approximately 0.1%. School staff-to-student ratios had statistically significant positive associations with two dimensions of satisfaction. Respondents were around 41% and 43% more likely to agree that they had a shared sense of belonging and risk of dropout, respectively, where their schools had higher staffing ratios.

Table 3 Logistic regression models for student experience
Full size table

Prior academic achievement had mixed associations across the SESurv dimensions. The ATAR (standardized) effect sizes ranged from − 2% to 2% (both positive and negative) in the likelihood of nominating a response. Positive effects were estimated in relation to overall satisfaction, teaching quality, learner engagement, and skills development, while negative effects on responses in relation to teaching spaces and student support were observed. Higher ATAR students were associated with a lower risk of dropout.

Students’ personal characteristics and student experience

Female students had relatively higher overall satisfaction rates, as well as higher rates of satisfaction with teaching quality, sense of belonging, and skills development. Age was negatively correlated with reported student experience, specifically for sense of belonging, learner engagement, teaching spaces, and learner resources. Regarding equity group status, Indigeneity was linked with a prominent increase of 14% in the student support but also an 8% increase in self-assessed risk of dropout and 6% lower level of satisfaction with teaching spaces and learner engagement. NESB status was associated with a lower probability of overall satisfaction (− 5%), teaching quality (− 5%), and learner engagement (− 4%), but also an increased probability of expressing a sense of belonging (7%) and lower risk of dropout (− 4%). Students with disability had a lower probability of being satisfied overall and expressing satisfaction with their university engagements, sense of belonging, learner engagement, teaching spaces, learner resources, and skills development. In addition, they were 4% more likely to be at risk of dropout. However, they were 5% more likely to nominate satisfaction with student support systems. LSES students were more likely to report lower levels of satisfaction across several dimensions and 2% more likely to report lower overall satisfaction, in addition to a higher self-reported risk of dropout. Only one statistically significant effect on learner engagement was observed in relation to first-in-family status and three for rural/remote status, learner engagement, teaching spaces, and sense of belonging.

Students’ university study factors and student experience

Students who studied part-time had generally poorer likelihoods of satisfaction with their student experience across all measured dimensions. Further, the magnitudes of the estimated shifts in probability of satisfaction were sizable, such as those for overall satisfaction (− 7%), learner engagement (− 14%), and skills development (− 8%). The group also faced a 5% increased likelihood in their risk of dropout. First year students were generally at increased probabilities of expressing satisfaction in their student experience, and with rather substantial estimates. For instance, they were 7% more likely to be satisfied overall and, with regard to specific dimensions, were more likely to be satisfied with teaching quality (7%), teaching spaces (10%), learner resources (10%), and student support (8%). They were, however, less likely to be satisfied with their learner engagement (− 4%) and skills development (− 5%) and also 3% more likely to self-assess as being at risk of dropout.

Some online study was associated with a 7% increase in the likelihood of expressing overall satisfaction and a 3–11% increase across individual dimensions of satisfaction. In contrast, exclusive online study had no association with overall satisfaction; however, there was an increased likelihood of students being satisfied in relation to teaching quality (3%), student support (7%), and skills development (5%), but a reduced probability of having a sense of belonging (− 9%) or positive views on learner engagement (− 13%). Students who studied exclusively online were also 4% more likely to be at risk of dropping out.

Discussion

This study reinforces findings from earlier work by Jury et al. (2017) and Li and Carroll (2020) showing that equity students report lower levels of overall satisfaction in their HE experiences in Australia. Further, student experiences among LSES and students with disability were particularly poor, aligning with earlier work by Edwards and McMillan (2015) and Kilpatrick et al. (2017). For the financially privileged, this may reflect reduced ability to draw on family and other networks for support in navigating the unfamiliar terrain of HE and its predominantly middle-class culture (Keddie et al., 2008). The relatively poor levels of satisfaction among students with disability substantiate calls for strategies to improve their university experience (see Fleming et al., 2017). However, students with disability also reported positive values for student support. This result follows other studies that identify the relatively complex mix of social barriers to participation for people with disability, over and above resourcing requirements, including attitudes to students with disability (among staff and students), the physical and built environment that does not follow Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, and the mode and manner in which educational content is delivered (Pitman, 2022). These findings emphasize that widening participation and student support services focused on participation and retention are inadequate, and HE must provide targeted support for equity groups to ensure success at university and post-graduation outcomes.

Some of our findings were inconsistent with Pedler et al.’s (2022) work; sense of belonging was not lower among first-in-family students, although this is likely due to an insignificant effect around overall satisfaction (Crawford et al., 2023). Further, the group’s intersectional nature (O’Shea, 2016) could be the reason for this uncertain result. Likewise, there were no statistically significant effects on sense of belonging associated with students living in rural and remote regions or Indigenous status. However, Li and Jackson (2023) previously reported a higher risk of dropout among Indigenous students, suggesting that greater levels of student support and fostering stronger sense of belonging can play a critical role in enhancing student experience. This, and the nuanced findings for different equity groups, illuminate the need to review systems, processes, and practices across HE, including curriculum structures, to provide targeted support to improve the experiences of all students. Importantly, this requires co-design with students to ensure equity student perspectives help shape efforts to build more inclusive cultures in HE institutions.

Poorer satisfaction among older students may reflect the difficulties they experience in balancing their study, family, and work commitments (Mallman & Lee, 2017) or their propensity for part-time or off-campus study modes (Heagney & Benson, 2017). It could also reflect dissatisfaction with HE practices not leveraging the potential wealth of experience they bring to university (Murray & Klinger, 2012), aligning with the Accord Review’s (Australian Government, 2024) recommendation to recognize earlier experience, such as for those being asked to engage in mandatory work-based learning (e.g., practicum) and who may already have considerable relevant work experience. The reportedly lower levels of satisfaction among male students align with earlier work (Li & Jackson, 2023) and warrant further investigation, particularly in the context of study mode. Future work should also focus on gender differences in various contexts of student experience.

Those attending a non-government school were, albeit marginally, more likely to be satisfied with their higher education experience. This was somewhat anticipated, given evidence that students at non-government schools can be better prepared academically and are more likely to perform well at university (Li & Dockery, 2015), leading to greater levels of satisfaction with their higher education experience. Further, the high distribution of more privileged students in Australian non-government schools (Bonnor et al., 2021) can mean closer alignment between their own values and practices and those of higher education, allowing for a smoother transition and more positive university experience (Habel et al., 2016). Further, the relationship between staff-student ratios and satisfaction levels may point to the advantages created by greater resourcing in non-government schools (Bonnor et al., 2021; OECD, 2010) enabling a more seamless and positive transition into higher education. Collectively, these factors may explain the association between schools’ socio-economic status and satisfaction and suggest that relatively mature higher education systems such as Australia require a shift in focus towards how equity status influences academic schooling outcomes.

Reported overall satisfaction was higher for first year students compared to final year students. The same was true across most other satisfaction indicator domains, except for learner engagement and skills development. The intuitive explanation for this result is that school background, and student’s inherent level of cultural capital, is likely to exert a stronger influence on student satisfaction in the first year of studies compared to later years when course experience to date acts as a comparator when students are thinking about their educational experience. It suggests that work in the retention space should pay attention to school background in first year interventions, geared as they are towards student orientation and acclimatization. Once students progress through the early semesters of their degree, it is likely that other issues impact on their performance and retention, although students’ abilities to ameliorate such issues may still be influenced by their socio-economic status.

The results also indicate that a similar focus should apply to study mode. Students enrolled in online or mixed study mode courses reported reduced levels of overall satisfaction and weaker outcomes across a range of indicators, supporting earlier work (Li & Carroll, 2020). However, it is noteworthy that students who engaged in some online learning reported higher levels of satisfaction compared to those who studied wholly in person or wholly online. Therefore, the negative effects associated with off-campus study are not entirely coming from the lack of in-person engagement, and there are other factors at play. One might tentatively conclude that studying in a hybrid fashion—combining face-to-face and virtual learning—seems to work well for students and has the additional benefit of preparing students for hybrid arrangements common in contemporary work since the global pandemic.

Conclusion

This study examined the role of school background, personal characteristics, and university study factors on self-reported student satisfaction with Australian universities. Students from non-government schools had positive but very modest associations with some measures of student satisfaction yet resourcing factors do not appear important, especially after the first year of study. Students from equity backgrounds had lower levels of satisfaction, particularly students with disability and to a smaller extent, LSES and NESB students. While Indigenous students were satisfied with university study and the support received, retention remains a priority issue. Mode of study was confirmed as a key factor associated with reported student experience. The results showing those engaged in some online study experienced higher levels of satisfaction compared to those in wholly online or in-person study modes, indicates benefit in balancing digital and in-person study engagement.

There are, of course, limitations to the study. It was confined to exploring notions of self-reported experience from the student perspective and the dimensions prescribed in the SESurv. However, earlier studies such as Benckendorff et al. (2009) highlight how perceptions of what constitutes experience can vary across institutions and stakeholder groups and therefore these findings should not be taken as an exhaustive examination of student satisfaction. The restriction of the sample to a school leaver cohort potentially introduces sample selection issues, due to students from disadvantaged backgrounds often facing financial and other challenges to transit to higher education immediately after secondary schooling. Further, while the study utilized data from seven institutions, representing around 18% of Australian HE institutions, these were only located in three of Australia’s eight states/territories. Nonetheless, three of the four major higher education institution groupings were still represented, as were both metropolitan and regional areas. An obvious extension of this work is to include more major universities in Australian higher education, which would generate a larger and more comprehensive sample to further examine other issues relating to equity group experience, and emerging critical issues such as the influence of hybrid study options. This also extends to the analysis of data sourced in the immediate post-COVID period, which is almost certainly of importance in determining how the pandemic shaped the influence of equity status and study mode on reported student experience (O’Shea et al., 2021).

Finally, while we uncovered interesting effects in relation to school sector, a further refined analysis to include financial resourcing, different types of non-government and government schools and school culture and practices, will further tease out nuanced effects. Importantly, school background effects are relatively influential in affecting first year student experiences, and by extension first year retention, making the use of secondary education data potentially valuable in addressing student attrition, particularly among equity students.

The study develops our knowledge on the interplay of personal characteristics, university study factors, and school background with student satisfaction with their university experience. Overall, the findings highlight the need for better support and targeted strategies to achieve greater parity in the experiences and outcomes of equity group and other disadvantaged student groups in HE. Further, the findings signal the value of investigating how to balance on- and off-campus study to optimize satisfaction and experience, as well as the interaction of equity group status and propensity or reasons for off-campus study. This work is critical in an era of flexible work and study, particularly for equity groups who often struggle with the pressures of balancing competing study, work and family commitments (Raciti, 2019).