The divide between former polytechnics and established universities is being exacerbated by the size of bursary offered to students from deprived backgrounds, a report claims today.

It calls for a national bursary scheme to be set up so that all students in need can benefit equally.

The research, by the influential Higher Education Policy Institute, says that students from poor families are being penalised because they are more likely to go to new universities.

Such universities, with large numbers of students from deprived backgrounds, have to spread their bursary pots more thinly.

The older and more established Russell Group universities spend roughly the same money on bursaries overall, the report says, but can offer much more per student because of lower demand.

It says: “There exists a highly variegated market in bursaries, with higher education institutions largely free to determine the amount they spend on financial support and the way these funds are distributed.

“Broadly speaking, the more poor students an institution has, the less generous it can afford to be, and vice versa.

“Universities with the most demanding entry requirements are likely to have smaller proportions of students from low-income households and are therefore able to provide more generous means-tested bursaries.

“Students from the poorest backgrounds at a university with a preponderance of other such students are therefore likely to be significantly more reliant on term-time work to help finance basic living costs.”

This may intensify their “already unequal chances of successful outcomes”, the report said.

Any university charging the maximum annual amount for tuition fees — £3,145 — must offer a bursary of at least £310.

Russell Group universities spent 21.2 per cent of their combined income from charging fees on bursaries last year. The Million+ Group, which represents new universities, spent 21.8 per cent.

Times Recommends

• UK regional accents thrive against the odds
• ‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight
• What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth