PROFESSOR Steven Schwartz, who is conducting a government inquiry into university admissions, sparked a national debate when he suggested social disadvantage and the type of school a pupil attends mean they go to university ahead of middle-class students with higher grades?

Ian Singleton reports...

PROFESSOR Steven Schwartz candidly summed up the dilemma: "Almost everyone would agree that admission decisions should be based on merit -- the problem arises when we try to define merit."

He pointed to the United States where "merit is measured not only by where one stands, but by how far one had to go to get there.

"Merit could mean admitting students with the highest marks or it could take into account the obstacles a student had overcome."

Prof Schwartz was not making recommendations but raising the dilemma ---heightened by the government target of getting 50 per cent of young people to go to university -- so the matter could be debated.

But the notion that admissions should discriminate in favour of poorer students has caused controversy because many believe that results are the be-all-and-end-all.

A form of positive discrimination already exists to a lesser extent. A survey of 120 universities last year showed that 65 per cent already had strategies for admitting low-income applicants.

It showed that 13 per cent lowered their usual A-level grade requirements for these students, while 36 per cent took into account whether they came from schools with below-average results.

But, as Prof Schwartz is drawing up a best-practice guide for university admissions, any recommendations from his task force could see the policy becoming official across the board.

Stuart Smith, head of Habergham High School, in Burnley, agrees that more could be done to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

He said: "I think universities take these things into account anyway. If someone is good enough academically, they will go to university.

"It is not just about the A-level grades, it is about whether we have got a good standard. Universities won't just look at grades, they will look at what the student can offer, which is saying this person has done well, given the fact that they may have had certain problems.

"The problem at the moment is that they may be limited about where they can go. Many of our students now will apply for universities in the north west because of financial constraints.

"Another problem is encouraging others who fail at 18 that they can continue education for other reasons."

However, not all of East Lancashire's school bosses are in favour. Dr David Hempsall, headteacher at Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Blackburn, this year called for a debate over the future of education in England to halt what he described as a "steep decline in standards".

He said: "I believe our education system is in steep decline through over prescription. Our public examination system is rickety beyond repair. Getting good grades is easier than it used to be. Given the conflicting demands of candidates, parents, teachers, universities, employers -- all of whom want examinations to do different things -- the system simply cannot bear the strain.

"We must ask, what is the purpose of education? Only then may we construct an assessment regime which serves education."

But Dr Hempsall was not in favour of discriminating in favour of students with poorer grades. "In reaching their judgements universities should stick to hard evidence rather than factoring in subjective considerations,."