UCAS has published its end of cycle data for 2025.
Alongside the headline figures on acceptances – a record 577,725, up 2.3 per cent on last year – there’s new data on where students intend to live while studying.
For the first time, UCAS has released figures on intentions to live at home, and they make for fascinating reading.
Some 89,510 UK 18-year-olds who secured a place this autumn indicated they intended to live at home – up 7 per cent on 83,705 last year.
That means 31 per cent of UK 18-year-old accepted applicants planned to stay in the family home, a record high and a slight increase on 30 per cent in 2024. A decade ago, it was 22 per cent.
![]()
The figures differ sharply by nation and – crucially – by deprivation. Scottish 18-year-olds are most likely to live at home (46 per cent of accepted Scottish applicants), while Welsh 18-year-olds are least likely (21 per cent).
But the deprivation gradient is where the real story lies – 52 per cent of UK 18-year-olds in IMD Quintile 1 indicated they planned to live at home, compared to just 12 per cent in Quintile 5.
In England, that means the most disadvantaged young people are 3.5 times more likely to stay at home than their most advantaged peers.
The new scholarships tool
Alongside the figures, UCAS has launched a new scholarships tool designed to help students find the financial support available to them – a development that, given the data above, feels pretty timely. As UCAS chief executive Jo Saxton puts it:
Every young person should have the chance to make choices based on ambition, not affordability – which is why UCAS has launched a new scholarships tool to help students find financial support and keep their options open.
Saxton is careful to note that staying at home can “absolutely be the right choice for some”, such as those with caring or family responsibilities – but for others “it may close doors and limit access to courses or the wider university experience.”
The growing numbers, she suggests, may be driven by rising costs of living and broader financial considerations.
One of the persistent criticisms of institutional financial support has been its opacity – the postcode lottery of provision that makes it extraordinarily difficult for prospective students (and their advisers) to understand what’s available where.
Research by Brightside found widespread confusion among young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds about the differences between bursaries, scholarships, and fee waivers, with one commenting that it was almost like universities were “hiding this information away.”
A centralised tool that aggregates the information is a substantial step forward.
What are bursaries supposed to do?
The UCAS development invites another question – what, precisely, is all this student financial support supposed to achieve? As providers face their own financial squeeze – and as I noted last year, some are cutting planned support with OfS approval – it’s worth examining the policy rationale that’s supposed to underpin institutional bursaries and other forms of financial support in 2025.
In England, the Office for Students’ topic briefing on financial support sets out the regulatory expectation. Providers must, it says, take an evidence-led approach to developing financial support measures, providing a clear rationale for how financial support investment will help to reduce the gaps in access, success and progression.
Where providers have committed significant resources to financial support, OfS requires “strong evidence” in access and participation plans of how this will “help to improve outcomes for underrepresented students.”
The difficulty – and OfS acknowledges this – is that the evidence base has been historically thin. The topic briefing noted that previous sector-level analysis has found little evidence that financial support affects student outcomes.
OFFA research from 2010 found no evidence that bursaries influenced students’ choice of university – subsequent research in 2014 found no evidence that institutional bursary schemes had an observable effect on continuation rates.
A review by Nursaw Associates concluded that “financial support is not the most important factor in students’ decisions to apply to higher education” and that students receiving financial support have “comparable non-continuation rates with those who receive no financial support.”
There is, however, a footnote. That same review found that “a sizeable minority of students feel financial support does impact on their behaviour” – suggesting that bursaries may affect attitudes and relationships with institutions, even if the impact on hard outcomes proves harder to detect at sector level.
What TASO says
The Centre for Transforming Access and Student Outcomes (TASO) ought to know, and it distinguishes between pre-entry and post-entry financial support. For support offered after students enter HE, TASO’s assessment is that there’s a high-quality body of evidence that finds financial support can have a positive impact on retention/completion – but with a significant caveat:
…most of the existing research comes from the USA and more evidence is needed on the impact of financial support in the current UK context.
The key UK study TASO cites is Murphy and Wyness (2016), which found that increasing financial aid by £1,000 increased the likelihood of obtaining at least an upper second-class degree by 3.7 percentage points.
That’s meaningful – though hardly transformative.
TASO’s overall verdict is that there is a reasonable evidence base to support the use of needs-based grants to promote retention/completion, but less strong evidence that this approach can improve attainment/degree classification.
Crucially, TASO is clear about what remains unknown:
Currently we do not have enough evidence to make claims about which forms of financial support (bursaries/grants/fee-waivers/scholarships) are most effective.
It also notes that the sector is lacking causal studies about the impact of financial support offered by HE providers in the UK – and that even UK studies from the 2000s might not be relevant anymore, given that the system of student finance has considerably evolved.
What providers say they’re doing
The (fairly) newly approved Access and Participation Plans give us a window into how providers are framing their financial support – and the patterns that emerge are revealing.
Cost pressures
Across virtually every plan, financial support is positioned as addressing what OfS terms “EORR Risk 10” – cost pressures that can jeopardise a student’s ability to engage with and complete higher education. The language is consistent to the point of being formulaic – bursaries exist to “alleviate financial concerns,” “reduce the necessity for students to undertake excessive paid work,” and allow students to “focus on their studies.”
Bournemouth University’s framing is typical – its maintenance bursary aims to:
…reduce financial anxiety and enable students to focus on their studies.
This is, in policy terms, a success-stage intervention. The dominant theory of change is that financial support improves continuation and completion by reducing the competing demands on students’ time and attention – not that it drives access in the first place.
Only a handful of plans make explicit claims about bursaries influencing choice of institution, reflecting the weak evidence base on that question.
The variation in provision
The amounts on offer vary enormously. At the top end, Imperial College commits over £12.6 million annually to financial support, with its Imperial Bursary providing up to £5,000 per year for students from households with incomes under £70,000.
King’s College London forecasts over £10.1 million annually through its King’s Education Grant scheme, offering £2,000 per year for students with household incomes up to £25,000. The Courtauld Institute – small but London-based – offers up to £3,000 annually for students with household incomes of £45,000 or less, plus a competitive scholarship worth £10,000 over three years.
At the other end, provision is far more modest. Anglia Ruskin’s core bursary offers £300 for households up to £25,000, and £200 for those between £25,001 and £42,875. Leeds Arts University’s Creative Practice Support Bursary provides £400 in Level 4, £500 in Level 5, and £700 in Level 6.
Aston offers just £500 in first year only for households under £42,875. Birmingham Newman’s Support Fund averages around £429 per grant application.
The household income thresholds at which support kicks in also vary wildly – £25,000 at many providers, £30,000 at Bradford, £42,875 at others, £45,000 at the Courtauld, £63,000 at Sheffield Hallam, and £70,000 at Imperial. A student from a household earning £50,000 would be entitled to substantial support at some institutions and nothing whatsoever at others.
Care leavers and estranged students
If there’s one area of genuine consensus across the plans, it’s the treatment of care-experienced and estranged students. These groups consistently receive the most generous and comprehensive support – reflecting both their acute financial vulnerability and the sustained lobbying by organisations like Stand Alone and Become.
City University of London offers £3,500 annually through its City Cares Bursary, plus up to £2,500 in hardship funding and a £750 graduation package. Bournemouth provides £3,000 per year plus guaranteed year-round accommodation. Coventry covers 52 weeks of accommodation costs – valued at approximately £8,320 per care leaver annually – recognising that these students have nowhere to go during vacations.
King’s adds an extra £1,000 annual award on top of its standard bursary. Liverpool Hope offers a 50 per cent accommodation discount plus a catering package. Northumbria’s new Unite Foundation partnership offers free 52-week accommodation for up to six eligible students.
The rationale is that these students face not just financial disadvantage but the absence of family safety nets. The consistency of provision here – and its relative generosity compared to income-based bursaries – suggests the sector has internalised the argument that care leavers require qualitatively different support.
Hardship funds
Beyond core bursaries, hardship funds have expanded substantially across the sector. Northumbria commits £3 million annually – a figure that reflects both genuine need and, perhaps, an acknowledgment that predictable bursary amounts cannot address unpredictable financial crises.
Kingston forecasts over £2.2 million in total financial support, with its Student Support Fund providing up to £3,000 for students with dependents. Birmingham City maintains a Financial Assistance Fund of £1.375 million annually. Canterbury Christ Church’s Access to Learning Fund can award up to £3,750 for students in extreme hardship.
The growth of hardship provision raises an interesting question – is this evidence that core bursaries are insufficient, or that student financial precarity has become so acute that even “adequate” maintenance plus bursary doesn’t prevent crisis? Several plans note rising applications to hardship funds as a driver of expanded provision – Falmouth explicitly states it has “substantially increased funding for the Hardship Fund to meet demand.”
Expansion of in-kind support
A notable trend is the expansion of non-cash support – laptops, textbooks, food, accommodation subsidies – that address specific barriers rather than providing general maintenance. Birmingham City’s “BCU Advantage” scheme provides students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds with a “laptop for life.” Anglia Ruskin offers one free core electronic textbook per module to all Level 4 students.
Several providers now run community pantries, food banks, or subsidised meal schemes – Birmingham Newman offers discounted food after 2pm, Canterbury Christ Church has a “Helping Hand menu,” Leeds Trinity provides a “£2 hot meal deal.”
This shift reflects a recognition that cash bursaries, however welcome, may not address specific resource barriers. A student who can’t afford a laptop faces a qualitatively different problem from one who needs help with general living costs – and a textbook scheme that reaches all students may be more equitable than a bursary that requires application and means-testing. The Open University’s Study-Related Costs Fund, providing grants up to £250 for IT equipment, explicitly addresses the “digital exclusion” risk that’s particularly acute for distance learners.
Progression-related support
There’s also growing emphasis on progression-related financial support – interview travel costs, placement expenses, work experience funds, internship bursaries – reflecting recognition that financial barriers don’t end at graduation. Aston offers a £1,250 placement bursary for students from low-income households or those undertaking unpaid placements. City University’s Micro-placement Fund provides up to £500 for participation in micro-placements. Arts University Bournemouth offers up to £300 for costs associated with accessing graduate employment opportunities.
The rationale is explicitly tied to closing progression gaps. As Bournemouth’s plan notes, “internal data shows that placements are strongly associated with improved degree attainment and progression into high-skilled employment” – but low-income students face financial barriers to participation. Liverpool John Moores is developing new “ring-fenced paid internship programmes” specifically for Black students and care-experienced students, “targeting sectors where progression gaps are largest.”
Scholarships Plus
A handful of providers are explicitly integrating financial support with non-financial interventions – what York St John calls “Scholarships Plus.” The idea is that cash alone is insufficient – bursaries should be accompanied by activities designed to enhance confidence, belonging, and career readiness.
Sheffield Hallam’s Student Success Scholarship is “highly targeted at students with household incomes under £63,000 who belong to defined ‘priority groups’” – but the purpose is explicitly to increase “the student’s capacity to engage fully with their studies,” not just to provide income replacement.
It’s a more sophisticated theory of change than simple cash transfer – but it also raises questions about conditionality and whether support should require participation in additional activities. The evidence base for “scholarships plus” approaches is, if anything, even thinner than for straightforward bursaries.
Front-loading versus smoothing
The plans also show up divergent approaches to how support is structured across the student lifecycle. Some providers front-load support, offering higher amounts in first year when transition challenges are greatest. Aston’s £500 bursary is first-year only; Kingston’s £2,000 bursary is first-year only. The rationale is that this is when financial barriers to continuation are most acute.
Others have moved in the opposite direction. One provider I looked at last year shifted from higher initial support with reduced amounts in subsequent years to a flat £1,000 across all years – a “smoothing” approach. Leeds Arts University actually back-loads its support: £400 in Level 4, £500 in Level 5, £700 in Level 6 – reflecting the higher material costs of final-year creative projects. Norwich University of the Arts does something similar: up to £500 in Year 0/1, £300 in Year 2, £200 in Year 3.
The evidence on optimal timing is essentially non-existent. Does front-loading improve continuation? Does back-loading support completion? Does smoothing reduce financial anxiety across the whole course? The plans assert various rationales, but few cite robust evidence for their chosen approach.
Evaluation, evaluation, and inflation
OfS requires providers to evaluate their financial support using “robust methods” – and several plans reference the OfS Financial Support Evaluation Toolkit, quasi-experimental designs, or commitments to ongoing evaluation. Birmingham mentions it “will continue periodically” to evaluate its financial support offer “based upon the OfS financial support toolkit.” East Anglia commits to evaluating financial support “using a quasi-experimental design.”
But the reality is that there’s little evidence of systematic evaluation across the sector – and almost no evidence that planned reductions in financial support have been evaluated for negative impacts. Providers cutting bursaries don’t appear to be required to demonstrate that this won’t harm continuation or completion. The OfS toolkit exists, but its use appears patchy at best.
Also notable is what’s absent from the plans. Inflation – the factor that has most dramatically affected student living costs over the plan period – is rarely mentioned except in relation to the maximum tuition fee that providers hope to charge.
Students facing a cost-of-living crisis that has seen food prices rise by over 25 per cent since 2021 are, apparently, not worthy of quantified analysis. Bursary amounts are stated in nominal terms with no commitment to uprating – household income thresholds are fixed with no acknowledgment that £25,000 in 2028 will be worth substantially less than £25,000 today.
Kingston’s new “Back on Track grant” – up to £500 for students experiencing “short-term financial difficulty due to cost-of-living increases” – is one of the few explicit acknowledgments that inflation has changed the landscape. But this is framed as crisis intervention, not as a reason to revisit core bursary amounts.
Coherence
Overall we see a sector that has internalised a consistent rationale for financial support – addressing cost pressures to improve continuation and completion – while implementing it through inconsistent mechanisms. A student from a household earning £25,000 might receive £5,000 at Imperial, £2,000 at King’s, £1,000 at Kingston (first year only), £500 at Aston (first year only), or £300 at Anglia Ruskin. The same student with care experience might receive anywhere from £1,000 to £8,000+ depending on institution, location, and whether accommodation is included.
This is, of course, partly a function of institutional resources and student demographics – providers with higher proportions of disadvantaged students must spread resources more thinly. Murphy and Wyness (2016) found precisely this – a decentralised bursary system creates inequalities, with disadvantaged students at better-resourced institutions receiving substantially more. As they noted:
…universities with a higher proportion of disadvantaged students have to spread their resources amongst more students, limiting the amount that each student can get.
But there’s a deeper coherence problem. The regulatory framework asks providers to demonstrate how financial support will “improve outcomes for underrepresented students” – yet the evidence that institutional bursaries achieve this at scale remains weak.
Providers are, in effect, being asked to evaluate something that the sector-level evidence suggests may not work in the way the policy assumes. And when providers conclude that their bursary scheme isn’t delivering – or that resources would be better deployed elsewhere – OfS appears willing to approve reductions without requiring evidence that this won’t cause harm.
Meanwhile, the broader context is getting worse. Maintenance loan increases have failed to match inflation; the parental contribution threshold has been frozen at £25,000 since 2007; and today’s UCAS data shows disadvantaged students increasingly constrained in their choices. The total planned financial support across the sample I examined last year was set to fall from £20 million in 2020-21 to £17 million by 2028-29 – real-terms cuts, approved by OfS, at precisely the moment students need more support.
The UCAS tool matters
This is why the UCAS scholarships tool feels significant – not because it solves the underlying problem, but because it at least addresses one of the compounding factors. If bursaries are to have any effect on access (rather than just continuation), prospective students need to know what’s available before they make choices.
The current system, where information is scattered across hundreds of institutional websites with different eligibility criteria, different application processes, and different timescales, serves no one well.
A centralised tool won’t fix the postcode lottery of provision. It won’t address the fact that some providers are cutting support while others expand it, and it won’t resolve the fundamental question of whether institutional bursaries are the most effective use of access and participation spend. But it might – might – help more students discover support they’re entitled to, and make slightly more informed choices as a result.
As Saxton notes:
…we need to remain alert to these challenges and more research is needed to fully understand the impact on student choice and progression.
That research gap – what financial support actually achieves, for whom, and under what conditions – remains the elephant in the room. Until it’s addressed, we’re left with a system where providers invest hundreds of millions of pounds annually in financial support, regulators require evidence of impact, but we still don’t really know whether any of it works.
