27 August 2026
A photograph circulated widely on social media last year: a first-year student, sitting alone in a university cafeteria, her tray untouched, crying quietly into her phone. The image was shared with a range of reactions, but beneath the disagreements about what it meant was a shared recognition: something about the university experience was not working for this person, and probably for many people like her.
The photograph became shorthand in a broader conversation about student mental health, a conversation that higher education has been having with increasing urgency for a decade but which seems, if anything, to be more urgent than ever. Demand for counselling services continues to outstrip supply at most universities. Rates of anxiety, depression and other mental health difficulties among students are significantly higher than in the general population of the same age. The transition to university – the combination of new academic demands, social displacement, financial pressure and often the first sustained period living away from family – is genuinely difficult, and universities are increasingly recognising that they have a responsibility to respond.
The responses have been varied. Some universities have invested heavily in expanding counselling and psychological services, though waiting lists remain long at many institutions. Others have introduced mental health first aid training for staff, peer support programmes, apps and digital self-help tools, wellbeing weeks and wellness initiatives. Some have reorganised accommodation to create communities of support. Some have introduced policies to support students in crisis, including leave of absence policies, extensions and adjustments.
These responses are genuine and some of them are helpful. But there is a growing sense that they are insufficient, that universities are responding to mental health as a welfare problem when it is also a structural one. The conditions that produce mental health difficulties are not just individual vulnerabilities meeting the stresses of student life. They are, in part, produced by how universities are organised: the competitive academic culture, the commodification of education, the social isolation of urban commuter campuses, the financial precarity of part-time work alongside full-time study.
There is a parallel here with the history of occupational health. Early approaches to workplace injury treated accidents as the fault of individual workers: they were careless, unqualified, unlucky. Over time, the field shifted toward understanding how the design of work itself created hazards, and toward holding employers responsible for creating safer environments. Something similar may be needed in higher education: a shift from treating mental health as an individual problem requiring individual solutions toward examining how the design of the university experience itself creates conditions that are harmful to mental health.
This does not mean eliminating challenge from university education. Challenge is not just unavoidable; it is a crucial part of what makes university education valuable. Intellectual difficulty, the experience of failure and recovery, the need to manage competing demands – these are not bugs in the system to be designed out but features that contribute to growth. The question is how to distinguish between productive difficulty and unnecessary harm, between the challenge that builds capacity and the pressure that breaks it.
Some of what universities do falls clearly into the unnecessary harm category. Assessment deadlines clustered at the same point in the term, with no flexibility for students managing multiple pressures. Feedback that is evaluative but not developmental, leaving students knowing their grade but not knowing how to improve. Campus environments designed for efficiency rather than belonging, with little space for informal connection and community building. Academic cultures in which admitting difficulty is seen as weakness, discouraging students from seeking help before problems become crises.
Addressing these structural issues requires more than a wellbeing week or a mindfulness app. It requires university leadership that is willing to ask difficult questions about institutional culture and design, and to make changes that may be costly or inconvenient. It requires academic staff who see student wellbeing as part of their professional responsibility, not as someone else’s job. It requires student services that are integrated with academic support, so that a student struggling with mental health receives coherent help that addresses the whole picture of their difficulties.
There is a broader question here about what universities are for. If universities are primarily institutions for the transmission of knowledge and the credentialing of expertise, then student mental health is an obstacle to that mission, something to be managed so that students can get on with the real work. But if universities understand themselves as places for the development of whole people – for intellectual, social, emotional and moral growth – then student mental health is not peripheral to the mission; it is central to it.
The photograph of the student in the cafeteria is not just a story about individual distress. It is a question about what kind of institutions universities want to be. Answering that question honestly, and acting on the answer, is more difficult than any wellbeing programme. It may also be more necessary.
.jpg)
