How Multi-Intervention Outreach Helped First-Generation Students Get to University—and Stay There
Fletcher, L., & Wong, B. (2026). ‘Experience matters’: A case study of student reflections from taking part in a pre-university outreach and mentoring programme. *Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education*. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2026.2734823
Introduction
Fletcher and Wong (2026) tackle a persistent problem in UK higher education: getting underrepresented students not just into university, but through it. Their case study examines a multi-intervention outreach and mentoring (MIOM) program at one English university, combining campus visits, subject taster activities, a residential stay, and e-mentoring from current undergraduates. The authors note that existing evidence on MIOM effectiveness is mixed, with UK evaluations of programs like Aimhigher and UniConnect producing inconsistent results depending on intensity and design. This study aimed to add a qualitative, participant-level account of how one such programme shaped students’ decisions and transitions.
Methods
The researchers conducted 45-minute semi-structured interviews with 12 former MIOM participants who had gone on to enroll at the host university, drawn from a pool of 62 eligible alumni contacted by email. Interviews explored motivations, experiences of the programme, and current university life, and were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis approach, with two researchers independently coding for reliability. This qualitative data was paired with quantitative continuation and attainment data from 115 tracked MIOM participants who enrolled between 2016 and 2023.
Results
MIOM participants continued into their second year at notably higher rates than comparable peers—96.5% versus 90.7% institution-wide, with an even starker gap among the most disadvantaged students (IMDQ1: 100% versus 87.9% continuation). Degree attainment, however, showed no similar advantage, suggesting the programme’s benefit is concentrated at the access and continuation stages rather than academic performance. Qualitatively, 11 of 12 interviewees were first-generation students, and the single most valued programme element—cited by more participants than any other—was the chance to talk informally with current students. Half of participants said the program helped them feel prepared for university life specifically. MIOM appears to work less by converting reluctant students and more by reducing uncertainty and building confidence among students already leaning toward higher education.
Discussion
Rather than reshaping students’ sense of whether university was “for people like me,” the program functioned as a rehearsal, letting students experience campus life before committing to it. This aligns with Bourdieu’s (1977) concept of institutional capital—participants were equipped with practical knowledge of “the rules of the game” that better-resourced peers often absorb through family experience.
The authors raise an important caveat: because most interviewees were already college-bound before participating, the program may be reaching students who would have progressed regardless, raising questions about whether current targeting reaches those who most need intervention. Financial anxiety also appeared as a second major trend, consistent with prior UK research (Yarde et al., 2023), with concern often persisting until students were actually managing a budget in practice. The pandemic-era shift to online delivery also drew consistently negative reflections, reinforcing that face-to-face contact drives the program’s impact.
Implications for Mentoring Programs
Informal conversation with current students was the most frequently cited valuable element. Programs should treat access to current students as a core design feature, actively recruiting ambassadors from underrepresented backgrounds, since representation appears to matter for whether prospective students can picture themselves succeeding similarly. Programs should also revisit recruitment and targeting. If outreach consistently draws already-engaged, already-supported students, genuinely widening access may require deliberately building pathways for less-engaged students. Extending application deadlines, as this university has done, and deepening partnerships with schools in low-participation areas are two concrete steps. Concrete guidance on living costs and budgeting should remain fixed, and in-person delivery should be prioritized over online formats wherever resources allow. Finally, programs should build in deliberate post-enrollment follow-up, since easing the transition doesn’t end once a student receives an offer.
Read the full article here
