It is not 'fair’ to tie universities’ hands

One thing that we hoped had been left behind with the defeat of the Labour Party at the last election was its predilection for social engineering. Having failed miserably to improve state schools – to the point where social mobility had flattened during its term in office – the previous government decided that access to universities should be “widened”. It wanted the best institutions to select students not merely on their academic merits, but on their social background. It is depressing to find the same policy now being championed by the Coalition. This week, ministers will propose that universities wanting to charge tuition fees of more than £6,000 per annum – that is, the best ones – must sign up to new “access agreements” with the Office for Fair Access. Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, will meet vice-chancellors to discuss which factors should be considered when broadening their intake, such as income, ethnicity or family background. They will also be encouraged to make “differential offers” to teenagers from inner-city comprehensives, accepting lower A-level grades than from privately educated candidates.

Liberal Democrat ministers may believe that this approach will rebuild their party’s credibility following the calamitous poll slump that followed the tuition fees rise. They may seriously believe that it will increase the representation of children from poorer backgrounds at the top universities. But whatever the motive, it is a profoundly misguided policy. Of course universities should be able to select bright students who have not achieved high A-levels: it is potential, not merely the ability to pass exams, that should be assessed. When universities routinely set their own entrance exams and carried out interviews, this was, indeed, possible. The best universities should also conduct some talent-spotting of their own.

But once prescriptive access rules are laid down, the room for flexibility is limited – there will follow a deluge of appeals from those who are justifiably aggrieved that their child has been excluded in favour of another with poorer exam results. This might be considered “fair” by Mr Clegg (educ: Westminster and Oxford) but does not conform to most people’s idea of what is just. Nor, in an increasingly competitive global market for tertiary education, can universities afford to debase their entry requirements. The blight of under-achievement by bright children from deprived backgrounds has been caused by poor schooling and failed education and welfare policies. The UK’s top universities have been an island of excellence in a rising tide of mediocrity. We undermine these elite institutions, in pursuit of an egalitarian agenda, at our peril. Telegraph