PR people and journalists love surveys. For the former they are a relatively cheap way of getting publicity for their product, while the latter welcome the copy they provide.

Maybe readers like surveys too, giving them the chance to see whether their own habits or views are typical or extreme.

There is little doubt that students - like other young people - have expensive tastes

This week's Student Living Survey, commissioned by the accommodation services company Unite, certainly attracted attention with some nuggets of information: 86% of students own a mobile phone, over 25% spend �20+ a week on alcohol, and graduates expect to leave university with an average debt of over �8,000.

There is, of course, one tempting (but probably false) reaction: If they stopped wasting their money on fashion-accessory mobile phones and booze they wouldn't be in so much debt.

There is little doubt that students - like other young people - have expensive tastes.

Consumerism encourages the purchase of mobile phones, mini-disc and DVD players, and sugary and costly "alcopops".

TVs and computers

Visit campus accommodation today and you will see gadgetry - including computers and televisions - which was not to be found in student rooms 10 or 15 years ago.

Indeed one of the best things about being a student then was that it removed you from the temptation of watching television.

But it is too simple to dismiss students as a bunch of spendthrifts.

You could equally pick out a different set of findings from the survey: One fifth spend nothing at all on alcohol, 43% work part-time during term to make ends meet, and the vast majority think going to university is worthwhile.

So which is it? Are students a boozy, pampered, indolent bunch of fashion victims? Or are they hard-working, sober young people who are struggling to keep up with their bills?

Limitations

This is where you find the shortcomings of surveys. Is the one quarter or so of students who are struggling with debts the same group of individuals who are spending �20 to �50 a week on drink?

Over 25% of students spend �20+ on drink, a recent survey found

Or are those in debt the same ones who are drinking nothing and are having to take part-time jobs at the expense of their studies?

The truth is that we cannot be sure.

However one thing we can be fairly certain about from this survey is that the financial situation of students varies enormously. And this is where it gets interesting.

Of course, the affluence of students has always varied greatly according to family background.

Universities have long been a place where super-rich Old Etonians rubbed shoulders with the sons and daughters of cleaners or ship-yard workers.

Grants abolished

But the key difference in the past, before the full grant was first frozen and then abolished, was that even the poorest student could get by without having to take a term-time job.

And, because having a mobile phone or a television for the daily fix of Neighbours was not considered essential then, students could also afford a drink in the bar.

In fact, the students who tended to be worst off in the days of the full, but means-tested, grant were those whose reasonably affluent parents refused to pay their contribution to the grant.

Now, of course, state financial support is almost the same for all students, with even the richest eligible for three quarters of the maximum subsidised loan.

Indeed many who are generously supported by their parents still take up the low-interest loans.

They are, after all, a source of very cheap money. Perhaps it is this group which can afford the mobile phones and regular trips to the pub?

Working to avoid debt

Meanwhile another group of students is, for cultural or family reasons, debt-averse.

They are then forced to take on part-time - in some cases almost full-time - jobs to support their studies.

The survey doesn't provide a lot of evidence to correlate student lifestyle and debt with family background but it is interesting, if hardly surprising, to note that rather more former state school students are working (two fifths) compared with those who were privately educated (one third).

An obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that more financial support is needed for students from poorer homes.

This can be done in one of two ways: Either there can be full cost-of-living grants for all students or there can be means-tested grants targeted at the less well-off.

This dilemma goes to the heart of the government's review of student financial support. Ministers seem to be struggling to come to a conclusion.

Grants for all?

There is a strong argument for universal grants. But with any increase in basic taxation earmarked for health spending, that would have to be paid for by a hefty graduate tax.

The survey showed only one third of students supported the idea of a graduate tax (the non-drinking part-time workers?)

The majority of students appear to have mobile phones

By contrast, almost half (those supported by their parents and supplemented by cheap student loans, perhaps?) preferred the current system.

The government review is already well overdue. At root the issue comes down to whether ministers are willing to hit the middle-classes (of whom many more go to university) in order to raise funds to subsidise the poor.

The indications are that they are wary of incurring middle-class wrath. A universal grants scheme is unlikely. So too, despite early ministerial enthusiasm, is a graduate tax.

More likely is a targeted scheme of means-tested grants for poorer students. It might cost, say, �400m a year.

Oh, and at the same time, ministers might decide it is time to charge commercial rates on those student loans which some are using to fund their mobile-phone and alcopop lifestyles.

Funnily enough, that should save around �400m for the Treasury.