Connect with us

Business

University students like me are happier living at home – here’s why

Published

on

University students like me are happier living at home – here’s why


Iolo CheungBBC Wales and

Ellie CarterBBC Wales

BBC A girl in a white top smiling at the camera BBC

Only two of Kirsty’s coursemates actually live on the university campus

Leaving home to go to university was once considered a rite of passage.

But university student Kirsty Holpin, who lives with her grandmother and drives to lectures each day, says only two of her course mates actually live on campus.

“The rest of us travel in,” says the 23-year-old, who is one of a growing number of students choosing to live at home with family instead of moving into student digs.

UCAS figures suggest the number of students intending to live at home has doubled in the last 20 years, with rising rent cited as a major factor. Other reasons include shifting priorities towards academic study, rather than drinking and socialising.

Now in her third year studying psychology and criminology at the University of South Wales, Kirsty drives 35 minutes from her home in Fochriw, Caerphilly county, to the campus in Treforest, Rhondda Cynon Taf, to attend lectures.

“When we were pricing it up [for halls] it was extortionate,” she said.

“So as a family it was, ‘would you rather stay home, or go and basically work your butt off to make rent?'”

Kirsty admits that the decision did leave her more “isolated” when it came to social opportunities, but doesn’t regret her choice.

‘Not much of a drinker’

Kirsty admits living on campus would have given her a better social life.

“But I’m not much of a social drinker anyway,” she said.

“And I can always travel down to university if I need to for events, and make time for that.

“At home I have a brilliant, supportive environment, so I can get everything done like assignments – if I was at uni halls, I probably wouldn’t have achieved as much as I have.”

She says blended learning has made things easier for her and others, with more lectures now having the option of being attended remotely.

And without the need to be on campus every day, some students are going to extreme lengths.

“There’s a girl I met last year who was travelling from the West Midlands,” says Kirsty.

“She said it’s much easier to book a hotel room and spend £90 a night when she needs to come down, than spend £600 on rent.”

A recent survey by campaign group Save The Student found that 15% of students in the UK now live with parents or guardians – an increase from 12% in 2020 – with average travel times to campus also rising from 21 to 26 minutes.

“It doesn’t sound like a huge change, but if you look at it in terms of the number of students across the UK, that is quite a significant movement,” said spokesperson Tom Allingham.

In Wales, students now spend an average of £473 a month on rent, while in England the average figure is £556 and in Scotland it is £663, according to Save The Student.

“It’s no surprise that we’re seeing this change, because of factors like the availability and cost of housing, and bills,” says Deio Owen, president of the National Union of Students (NUS) in Wales.

“And stories we see all the time about problems in student housing doesn’t help the narrative, it doesn’t entice people to move to student accommodation.”

But priorities may also have shifted, says Mr Owen, with many students not feeling that a campus lifestyle is key to their university experience any more.

“The traditional idea of people going to university to go out drinking and stuff, that’s not necessarily the de facto behaviour of students anymore,” he says.

“People are deciding to stay in, do sober socials, and students’ unions are key for that to work.

“So it’s crucial that any students who decide not to move to a campus-based university, or close by, don’t miss out on that socialising.”

Getty Images A group of students in a lecture theatre, sat down making notesGetty Images

15% of university students now live at home with parents or guardians, according to a recent survey

Isaac Williams, 20, is studying for a Culinary Arts degree at Coleg Llandrillo in Conwy, and says living at his family home and travelling 15 minutes to campus each day “just made sense”.

For him, academic and financial considerations are more important factors than socialising.

“I just want to go to uni so I can get my degree, and have a more successful career,” he says.

“I’ve got a group of friends from other aspects of my life.

“And I have an older brother who’s also staying at home while doing a uni degree. So it just works out well money-wise.”

Isaac, a young man wearing a beige hoodie with a black jumper, with short dark blonde hair, smiles at the camera

Isaac says academic achievement and money are more important factors to him than socialising

‘I was getting crazy fomo’

Research suggests the number of students planning to stay at home has doubled in the last 20 years.

But at the University of South Wales’ freshers event in Cardiff, many students were still keen to embrace the chance to move out of their parents’ house while studying.

“It was just to get the taste of independence, a sort of practice run for living on your own,” said Sophie Davies, 20, from Neath.

Her friend Morgan Lees, 18, from Merthyr Tydfil, added: “Staying at home while being at uni takes away some of the social aspects of it, and that was really important for me.”

Sophie Evans, 20, from Pontypridd, Rhondda Cynon Taf, started off living at home – but only took a month to change her mind and move into university accommodation.

“Everyone else was going out and stuff, I was getting crazy fomo [fear of missing out], and I was booking hotels or staying with people,” she said.

“So I thought it was better if I move away and have that sense of independence, and I did – having to budget by myself and live like a functioning person.”

Joe Williams, 20, from Swansea said the social life had been a key factor in choosing to live on campus.

“Just being around everyone, it was easy,” he said.

“I go back [home] often enough. The costs aren’t too bad, and I was going back home on weekends to work, so it was OK.”



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

RMB valuation and limits of traditional exchange rate models | The Express Tribune

Published

on

RMB valuation and limits of traditional exchange rate models | The Express Tribune


Global focus is on the Chinese currency, sparking debate over whether it is overvalued or undervalued

Foreign exchange reserves have started increasing on the back of recent loans by the AIIB, World Bank, and ADB. The reserves stand over $8.2 billion, and the IMF board is also expected to approve a $700 million tranche this Thursday. photo: file


KARACHI:

China’s merchandise trade surplus surged by $111.7 billion in November, reaching an impressive $1.08 trillion for the first 11 months of the year, a 22.1% increase compared to the same period of last year, according to official data. Western media has described the massive trade surplus as “remarkable,” but also warned that it could be “unsustainable,” citing concerns over China’s undervalued renminbi (RMB).

The soaring surplus has raised eyebrows among economists, many of whom have called on Beijing to allow the renminbi to appreciate more gradually over the next five years. They argue that a stronger currency could help boost China’s imports while providing relief to global competitors in Europe, the US, and other regions, who are increasingly losing market share to Chinese exports.

Global market attention has long been fixed on the trajectory of the renminbi, with renewed debate over whether the Chinese currency is overvalued or undervalued. Recent studies, relying on traditional neoclassical exchange-rate models, suggest that the RMB is deviating from its “equilibrium value.” However, economists warn that these conclusions are heavily influenced by the analytical frameworks used and may fail to account for the crucial role that modern financial forces play in shaping currency values.

Judging whether an exchange rate is misaligned is not simple. It’s inherently complex. Conventional neoclassical frameworks – such as the purchasing power parity (PPP) and the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis – focus on real-economy fundamentals, including productivity, prices and the current account. These models generally view capital flows and foreign-exchange trading as short-term reactions to real economic factors, rather than as independent forces that can influence long-term exchange-rate trends.

That assumption is increasingly called into question in modern highly financialised global economy. Annual foreign-exchange trading volumes are now many times larger than global trade in goods and services, suggesting that frameworks focused primarily on trade balances and relative prices may be far removed from market realities.

Conversely, (post)-Keynesian approaches argue that capital flows, financial cycles and shifts in expectations lie at the heart of exchange-rate movements. While these approaches do not dismiss the importance of the real economy or the current account, they contend that under modern financial systems, capital movements can influence both short-term fluctuations and long-term currency trends. Exchange rates implied by PPP, they argue, may never be reached and can diverge persistently in one direction.

The two approaches, according to economists, need not be viewed as mutually exclusive. Yet continued reliance on a purely neoclassical lens risks producing serious misjudgments, particularly during periods of heightened financial volatility. A comprehensive analysis, they argue, must account for both real-economy fundamentals and financial forces, with the latter often playing a decisive role.

The renminbi clearly exemplifies this debate. When China’s position in the financial cycle is taken into account – rather than focusing narrowly on the current account or productivity – recent movements in the currency appear less anomalous. Once financial-cycle dynamics are incorporated, the RMB may not deviate significantly from any plausible notion of an “equilibrium exchange rate”, assuming such a benchmark exists at all.

Neoclassical exchange-rate theory is based on several core assumptions: efficient markets, rational agents, flexible prices and wages, and the neutrality of money. Within this framework, trade imbalances are expected to self-correct through exchange-rate adjustments. A country running a persistent current-account deficit should see its currency depreciate, while surplus countries should experience appreciation. Over time, exchange rates are assumed to converge towards levels determined by real fundamentals.

However, real-world evidence frequently contradicts these predictions. The United States, for example, has run large and persistent trade deficits for decades without experiencing a corresponding long-term decline in the dollar. In the 1990s, the US trade deficit widened even as the dollar strengthened. Similarly, China’s own experience has shown that the relationship between the RMB and the current account has been far from stable, despite the presence of capital controls.

(Post-)Keynesian economists argue that these anomalies reflect the growing dominance of financial forces. According to data from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), daily global foreign-exchange trading reached about $7.5 trillion in 2022, dwarfing annual global trade flows of roughly $32 trillion. In such an environment, exchange rates are shaped primarily by financial transactions, capital flows and expectations rather than by trade fundamentals alone.

Under this view, exchange rates are not anchored to a stable long-run equilibrium. Instead, they reflect the cumulative outcome of short-term movements driven by investor sentiment, risk perceptions and shifts in global liquidity. Capital flows can sustain currency misalignments for extended periods, and there is no automatic mechanism ensuring that current-account imbalances are corrected through exchange-rate changes.

China’s post-2005 experience offers a case in point. Following reforms to the exchange-rate regime, the RMB underwent a period of nominal appreciation alongside rising domestic prices, resulting in sustained real effective exchange-rate appreciation. This pattern is difficult to reconcile with PPP-based mean-reversion models but is consistent with a financial-cycle perspective, in which capital inflows, rising asset prices and credit expansion reinforce one another.

More recently, the picture has shifted. Despite steady improvements in manufacturing capability and productivity upgrades, the RMB’s real effective exchange rate has depreciated. BIS data show that between January 2022 and October 2025, the RMB’s real effective exchange rate declined by around 16%. This outcome runs counter to predictions based on the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis, which would expect productivity gains to translate into real appreciation.

Economists attribute this divergence to China’s position in a downswing of the financial cycle. As credit growth slowed, domestic demand weakened and price pressures eased, the extent to which productivity gains could support currency strength is limited. At the same time, reduced incentives for holding RMB-denominated assets contributed to periods of depreciation against the dollar.

Signs are now emerging that the financial-cycle adjustment may be nearing its end. As conditions stabilise, incentives for capital allocation into RMB assets are beginning to recover, a shift that has already been reflected in recent currency movements. Against this backdrop, analysts argue that claims of significant RMB undervaluation based solely on traditional models may be overstated.

The broader lesson, economists say, is that exchange-rate analysis must evolve with the structure of the global economy. In an era dominated by finance, capital flows and expectations, frameworks that marginalise these forces risk misreading both the causes and consequences of currency movements.

The writer is an independent journalist with a special interest in geoeconomics



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

HDFC Bank Changes Lounge Access Norms For Debit Cards From January 10– Details Here

Published

on

HDFC Bank Changes Lounge Access Norms For Debit Cards From January 10– Details Here


New Delhi: If you often use your HDFC Bank debit card for free airport lounge access, this update is important for you. The bank has changed how complimentary lounge entry works on its debit cards. Instead of simply swiping your card at the lounge, customers will now need a digital voucher to get access. Also, the minimum spending requirement has been increased, reported Moneycontrol. These new rules will come into effect from January 10, and will apply to eligible debit cardholders going forward.

How the New Lounge Voucher System Works

Once your eligibility is confirmed, HDFC Bank will send you an SMS or email with a link to claim your lounge access voucher. You’ll need to verify your request by entering an OTP sent to your registered mobile number. You will receive a voucher code or QR code after successful verification which must be shown at the airport lounge to get entry.

Add Zee News as a Preferred Source


Minimum Spend Requirement Increased

Under the revised rules, HDFC Bank debit card users will now need to spend at least Rs 10,000 in a calendar quarter to be eligible for complimentary airport lounge access. Earlier, the minimum spend required was Rs 5,000.

However, this condition will not apply to HDFC Infiniti Debit Card holders. Customers using the Infiniti card will continue to enjoy free lounge access without any minimum spending requirement.

Eligible Transactions and Free Lounge Visits by Card Type

Only purchase transactions made using the debit card will be considered while calculating the quarterly spending requirement. Other types of transactions will not be counted, as noted by Moneycontrol.

Meanwhile, the number of complimentary lounge visits remains unchanged and continues to depend on the debit card variant:

Millennia Debit Card: 1 free visit per quarter

Platinum Debit Card: 2 free visits per quarter

Times Points Debit Card: 1 free visit per quarter

Business Debit Card: 2 free visits per quarter

GIGA Debit Card: 1 free visit per quarter

Infiniti Debit Card: 4 free visits per quarter

This means cardholders should check both their spending eligibility and card type to know how many lounge visits they can enjoy.

Which Transactions Count and Voucher Validity Explained

Only purchase transactions made using the debit card will be counted towards the quarterly spending requirement. As per Moneycontrol, the following transactions will not be included:

ATM cash withdrawals

UPI or wallet payments (GPay, PhonePe, Paytm, etc.)

Credit card bill payments made via debit card

Debit card EMI transactions

New debit cardholders will also need to meet the Rs 10,000 spending requirement to become eligible for complimentary lounge access.

Voucher Validity: 

Once issued, the lounge access voucher will remain valid till the end of the next calendar quarter, after which it will expire if not used.

What This Means for Debit Card Users

With the updated lounge access rules, HDFC Bank is clearly encouraging higher card usage and digital verification. Customers who regularly use complimentary lounge benefits will now need to keep a close watch on their quarterly spending and complete the voucher process in advance. As per Moneycontrol, physical debit card swipes will no longer work from January 10, making it important for travellers to switch to the new digital voucher system.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

NPS Changes In 2025: Know New Rules On Exit, Withdrawal, Lock-In And Entry

Published

on

NPS Changes In 2025: Know New Rules On Exit, Withdrawal, Lock-In And Entry




Source link

Continue Reading

Trending