The trouble with university interviews is that you can be coached to perform well. And that coaching tends to occur at the £20k private school who probably have teachers who went to Oxbridge as well as calling upon parents and former pupils who attended. Whereas at the 'crappy inner city Comp on the OFSTED watchlist', they've quite possibly never sent anyone to a top university and have no idea what is required, let alone how to prepare. In some cases the school actively discourages students from applying to any university, let alone Oxbridge - because it's not for 'people like us'.

The son of a duke is more likely to do well in an interview than a son of a dustman. Hence some universities don't bother with interviews.

Many universities are now taking matters into their own hands by setting up programmes and summer schools to work with students in crap local schools to develop their potential and widen their horizons.

Fair enough, but the point made earlier about admissions tutors spotting the well-coached applies at every level. As somebody who has seen this from both sides of the desk, with quite a bit of voluntary time spent helping sixth-form scientists at a local school to prepare for Cambridge interviews, the thing you notice when taking them off their syllabus to think around the science in unknown territory is that some can think quickly and reason well on their feet, whereas others who are predicted to get the same grades cannot. This process really only helps by levelling the playing field a bit in terms of confidence, they go in alongside Eton students such that both know they've had some preparation and some experience of what will happen.

When it does happen, admissions interviews will still take them off the beaten path, and those that can think quickly and apply their knowledge and understanding will be likely to do well (as tey should) if they can keep calm and work through it.

The same goes for entrance exams which are re-appearing more and more due to problems caused by grade inflation so bad that two students with A* predictions can be worlds apart. In addition some Cambridge colleges use critical thinking tests and other approaches which are capable of sorting those who will thrive from those who wouldn't survive. It's a competitive environment where all cannot have prizes.

The problems are more likely to occur elsewhere as it appears quite a few offers are made off paperwork alone with no interview, though Oxbridge will always get hammered for trying to identify the best talent even under the weight of meddling from social engineers.

FFS, this is all wrong.

Should be done on merit, not "well, your poor, have a degree. Your rich, you can't."

Arguably the kids who've been poorly supported at school / home might do well in the university environment you describe, although they could well need help to adapt to a way of studying that they're probably not used to.

This will ultimately become self. Defeating. Many of the Russell Group are already building up their own capital funds so that they can become self-funding independent universities and give two fingers to HEFCE/DofE and all others who meddle in their operation.

At that point we'll see real economics at play in selection. Many won't like it And those who drove the better universities to it will have no one to blame but themselves for a rigidly two-tier university system

It's easy to make statements such as your opener when you don't have to balance books that are substantially far from being balanced any time soon.

People at that age are adults and expect to be treated as such. They should behave that way. Not everyone going to uni pays zero thought to the outcome of their course. Indeed, most people I went with were acutely aware of their future and it was a key driver in going to uni.

Why are you dismissing the facts about the loans? They are very relevant and if a prospective student does not understand these points then they shouldn't be going to university in the first place.

Whether the fee structures are pointless with respect to them ever getting paid back or not is a totally separate argument. Indeed, if most of them will never have to be paid back, it simply strengthens the argument that students shouldn't be concerned by them.

I refer you back to the repayment structures, and just how key they are to anyone with an ounce of understanding of life. They do not count towards credit ratings, getting mortgages and the other lovelies of life. They only need paying back once you are earning decent money.

If you want to get yourself out of whatever social demographic you perceive yourself to be in, this "debt" should be of minimal consequence - if your further education works out, you get out of the hole and payback the leg up you were given. If your degree in Beckham studies ends up worth feck all, you don't pay the money back and you're no worse off than you were at the start other than a penchant for beans on toast, Thunderbird and the odd STD.

If the stats were run, I would wager there would be as much correlation between the advice parents give their kids and whether they go to university as there is assessing family "income".

The stat you are quoting is trying to reinforce a divide when there are likely myriad other social factors at least as much at play and probably more so...but blaming someone else for those wouldnt be possible nor would they make headlines.

What is the relevance of what happened years ago?

If people who are bright, but poor, they still have access to university without having to pay anything at the point of delivery.

If things are not good in the economy, it is pretty obvious that those bright enough should opt for higher education to degree and beyond, so that when the economy does rebound, they are best placed to benefit from it.

It seems to me several different points are being confused a bit here; yes there is a fundamental problem of trying to send half the country to university and yes it is possible to get to university from a failing school if you are talented and work hard. In my own situation I would say I was fairly lucky in that I was clever enough to pass and I got to university. However, the 5 A*-C rate for my year was 29%, which effectively rules out 71% from a high standard university education. I still refuse to believe that 71% of my year group were incapable of passing 5 good GCSEs and I don't put the problem down to weak teaching but rather to an absence of a focus on education and the possibility of attending university because for the vast majority their family will have no experience of it. Furthermore, home situations in areas such as mine are much more likely to be disruptive, a lack of routine and structure with often no male role model, and thus the cycle continues.

This will not break itself and therefore I continue to believe that direct action is necessary in some form or another. I'm not trying to be bitter here although some may think I am, so be it, the rich already have all the advantages, they have the connections and most importantly if you are the 6th or 7th generation to go to university and all your classmates are looking to do it then it's just the done thing. Moreover, private school students especially I find have a greater confidence in whatever they are saying and indeed it took me a term or two at university to shake the natural reaction that because it was said in RP it was correct. For these reasons if you want an equitable society you (the state) will have to intervene because at current the system replicates embedded privilege.

No I say what I mean. I don't know why you're trying to pretend money has no influence on anything, usually it is people who benefitted from that exact type of family who claim it's irrelevant but even the arch Tory banker lovers of PH cannot pretend money has nothing to do with it. People born into money have more opportunities than someone who doesn't, you may be embarassed about that but it's fact. It's not even news because everybody here knows it, why are you trying to pretend otherwise?

I would say being from a wealthy background would certainly help in gaining that perspective. I'm not saying for one moment that you didn't work as hard as anybody else but what you would define as success is already several levels higher than for most people from a poor background and again I don't think you can underestimate the impact of having previous generations of success at this level as a reference point.