News

Bank’s student living costs survey is seriously flawed and misleading

(21 September 2004)

A survey of student living costs by the Royal Bank of Scotland implying that Durham is one of the most expensive places to study is flawed and very misleading.

After a thorough analysis of the RBS Student Living Index 2004, staff from the University of Durham’s Undergraduate Admissions Office have challenged both the methodology and conclusions of the survey.

The RBS surveyed an unspecified number of students of whom 2,163 responded. All of the information in the index is based on the responses provided by this comparatively small sample. The information was then used to produce the “average” student expenditure on living costs and the “British students” spending on housing and living costs.

The survey then ranked each university city’s cost effectiveness by dividing the average local weekly student expenditure by the students’ average weekly income from part-time work.

The number of students responding to the survey worked out at about 100 students from each of the 21 cities listed in the RBS Student Living Index 2004. The 21 cities were chosen by selecting a range of cities that appeared high in the rankings of The Times “Good Universities” league table and which offered a wide geographical spread, but does not cover all 450 institutions of Higher Education in the UK.

Matthew Andrews, Head of Undergraduate Admissions at Durham says that the RBS survey methodology was questionable and was limited in both range and content. This produced a skewed and inaccurate set of results which could mislead potential applicants.

He also challenged the survey’s main conclusions which showed that Glasgow was the most cost-effective university city in which to study in the UK, while Durham was the least.

“The conclusions are arguably flawed and in particular the term ‘cost-effective’ is misleading. The RBS claim that the average student in Glasgow earns £102.80 per week from part-time work compared to the average Durham student’s part-time earnings of only £56.50 per week. This ignores the fact that 50% of the Glasgow students surveyed worked compared to only 21% of the Durham students,” says Andrews.

“The survey also ignores the fact that in a smaller city like Durham there is less part-time work available for students. In addition, Durham has raised significant funds in recent years to support students financially thereby reducing the number of students needing to take part-time work”, he says.

Using the weekly expenditure figures supplied by the Royal Bank of Scotland in their survey, it is indicated clearly that Durham is in fact one of the cities in which it is possible to spend less than the average amount per week as a student. Durham therefore has a lower cost of living than Glasgow according to the RBS survey.

The RBS survey claims that the average undergraduate at Durham spends £171.90 per week on housing and living costs compared to their counterparts in Glasgow spending £181.30.

The survey has also been condemned by academic and non-academic staff as well as students who say they consider Durham to be less expensive overall than many other university cities. For example Durham has one of the highest percentages of students living in university accommodation, with first year undergraduates staying in colleges which charge £116 a week which includes accommodation, three meals a day, internet access and a range of other services.

Second year students live out in private rented accommodation and rents are no more expensive than anywhere else and far less expensive than in many other towns and cities. Many students also have the option to return to college in their third or final year.

Durham also has a number of sources of financial assistance available to help students, including the Target Bursary which is a guaranteed financial award worth £2,000 to full-time undergraduates who meet certain criteria. Expert advice, support and counselling on student finance are also readily accessible through the Undergraduate Admissions Office, Colleges and the Students’ Union.

The Durham University view is that the RBS survey is seriously flawed and inaccurate and is therefore very misleading, says Matthew Andrews.

ends


For further information contact : Matthew Andrews, Head of Undergraduate Admissions, University of Durham, Tel 0191 334 6105

Media enquiries to : Tom Fennelly, Public Relations Office, University of Durham, Tel 0191 334 6078 or e-mail : t.p.fennelly@durham.ac.uk.