Beyond grades: rethinking student success in varsities

University education is not only about delivering lectures, awarding grades and degrees or meeting regulatory requirements. At its core, it is about the student experience; whether students are able to learn, persist, feel supported and graduate with confidence and dignity. In Pakistan, recent incidents have reminded us that university life can become overwhelming. Students facing academic pressure, financial stress, isolation or long administrative delays sometimes reach breaking points. These moments force an uncomfortable question: could the university have intervened earlier, faster and more humanely?

Most universities genuinely care about their students. Yet many governance systems were designed around procedures rather than persons. They function adequately for routine matters, but when a student faces real crisis - serious illness, sudden poverty, family breakdown, academic derailment or mental distress - those same systems often become slow and fragmented. Files move. Offices refer cases onward. Decisions wait. Meanwhile, the students' struggles continue.

This is not just an administrative gap. In many ways, it is a governance choice by the university leadership. When responsibility for student hardship is spread across multiple offices, as per policy, then no one truly owns the outcome. Delays increase stress. Dropout becomes more likely. Mental health suffers. A system that follows rules but fails its students is failing in its basic duty.

If student success is truly a core objective of university education, then it must be reflected in governance design. Effective universities do three things well. First, they create a clear front office for students, a place where any student can seek help for academic, financial or personal challenges and receive coordinated support. Students are not told to "try another office." Instead, the system works around them. Second, they intervene early, using simple data and human follow-up to identify risk before a student collapses. Waiting until failure occurs is not support; it is too late. Third, they give students a legitimate voice, so concerns become part of institutional decision-making rather than frustration expressed on social media or in corridors.

These ideas are not theoretical. They are already being applied within Pakistan. At the University of Management and Technology (UMT), student success has been deliberately treated as a priority rather than a side service. While the model continues to evolve, three specific initiatives illustrate what is possible.

First, instead of informal engagement, UMT introduced a structured student representation through the Provost's Participant Councils. In parallel, platforms such as Meet the Rector, the Provost's Roundtable, and Meet the Dean sessions allow direct dialogue between students and senior leadership. Student voice becomes governance input, not disruption. Second, UMT's Early Intervention System identifies students at risk using indicators such as low GPA, poor attendance, failed courses or signs of financial stress. Advising tasks are generated, follow-ups are tracked and unresolved cases escalate for further action. This shifts support from reactive to preventive and reduces silent dropouts.

Lastly, UMT recognised that many students fall into crisis because they do not understand how academic decisions (e.g. course withdrawals, freezes or repeats) increase the overall cost of education. To address this, UMT introduced a financial wellness approach, combining financial support with literacy workshops, counselling and planning tools. The aim is to help students manage challenges before they become crises.

These initiatives are not presented as perfect solutions or models to copy blindly. Their value lies in one message: student success improves when governance is designed around real student journeys, not just administrative convenience.

International experience reinforces this lesson. Arizona State University (ASU), for example, is widely recognised for placing student success at the centre of its institutional strategy. ASU uses data-driven early alerts, integrated academic advising and structured financial coaching to support a diverse student population, including many first-generation and financially vulnerable students. Student success is treated as a university-wide responsibility, not a small office with limited influence. The point is not to imitate foreign systems. The point is that successful universities align authority, data and accountability around student outcomes.

What does this mean for Pakistan? Pakistan's higher education regulations increasingly mention quality, inclusion and student support. But compliance alone will not improve student experience. What matters is whether governance structures enable timely decisions, coordinated support and accountability for outcomes for students.

Universities need to ask themselves honest questions: Is there a clear place where students can go when they are in trouble? Are problems identified early or only after failure? Is student voice structured into governance or treated as an inconvenience? Does leadership own student outcomes or only processes? Student experience is not a 'soft issue'; it directly affects retention, learning, mental wellbeing and public trust in higher education.

If universities continue to operate with rule-first systems, students will continue to fall through the cracks. But if institutions choose to redesign governance around student experience - early support, clear ownership and genuine listening - the results can be transformative. Because in the end, the true measure of a university is not only what it teaches, but how well it supports those it teaches. Student success is not an optional add-on. It is the purpose of university education itself.