Oxford wants to be a private uni...your thoughts!

Yeah, maybe, but like I've said several times, what if the AAA student is extremely bright...like the rest of his/her year, whereas the AAB is actually only of average intelligence, but is compared with his/her school year group that is full of plonkers.

How's it funded, national or state level?

Fair enough, but that's still discounting the fact that the AAA student will still most likely have worked extremely hard for those grades. On top of that, their parents aren't always extremely wealthy, they'll often have gone into dept to keep their children in good private schools to guarantee them the best possible education. Can you really justify disadvantaging these students when applying for university, just because their parents actually decided to put education in front of other aspects of life?

I accept that's a massive generalisation, but a nonetheless sizable proportion of private students are currently in that situation.

By the way, I don't think students are 'complete' by 18, but nor do I think students who, although they haven't performed extremely highly, have outperformed the rest of their school's yeargroup should receive undue favourable treatment in relation to other, higher-performing students from better schools (state or private).

Some parents no doubt go into debt in order to give their kids the best possible education, some would love the choice of being able to- had they not already found themselves barely above water without even thinking about spending an extra 100k in education fees on the kids. The proportion of those who can afford to take on debt of that magnitude is much smaller than those who can't.

It's not about unfavourable attention either- its about recognising potential. It's also about recognising a hindrance where it presents itself. It's like two athletes, starting at the same time: One crosses the finish line in 10 seconds, the other in 11. But the second athlete had to jump over ten hurdles, and run an extra ten metres. Which ones better? By your logic, the one that got the lowest time, its as black and white as that. To put it bluntly though, thats just wrong- education and schooling are infinitely more complex than three grades on a bit of paper make out, and its up to the universities to work out if they'd trade a drop in grades against the circumstances in which they were achieved.

But that places at a massive disadvantage that 50% of students whose parents have possibly gone into dept paying their school bills in order to ensure they get the best possibly education for their children, and who have worked their arses off throughout school to achieve those grades.

I completely agree that intelligent students should go to the best universities. However, I disagree that students who may be only slightly above average intelligence but who are much more intelligent than the rest of their year be given a clear advantage in comparison with students who may be much brighter, but who just happen to attend a school where average IQ is also a lot higher...

No no, this analogy is flawed, its like saying there are two athletes, one from a poor background, and one from a rich backround with a personal trainer and home gym. If the rich athlete won the race, they are fastest. End of. The race was fair, as are exams, people all sit the same exams. Only the quickest deserve the place at oxford.

But how can a claim to meritocracy be justified when students who have achieved different standards, be it as it may that they've had differing levels of input, are being compared as like-for-like candidates?

If anything, I think that's more biased. Parents pay thousands and thousands of pounds (often going into dept to do so)to guarantee their children a better education than the government can give them in the state sector, in order to improve their chances of finishing Sixth form at the kind of level that will improve their chances of going to the university of their choice, and now the government is putting all those students at a disadvantage by saying that even if state students don't achieve as highly as their private counterparts, they deserve the top university places anyway because they've out-performed the rest of their year group in their own school - be it as it may that the rest of that year is completely thick and he or she is actually only an average student? Where's the justice in that.

Easily the smartest thing Peter Griffin ever said

No no, this analogy is flawed, its like saying there are two athletes, one from a poor background, and one from a rich backround with a personal trainer and home gym. If the rich athlete won the race, they are fastest. End of. The race was fair, as are exams, people all sit the same exams. Only the quickest deserve the place at oxford.

It's essentially the same analogy- that one person has to go through more to reach the same benchmark as the other, be it advantages (the personal trainer) or hurdles (no access to facilities or something stopping them train). The point which underpins them is still identical- universities have an obligation to seek out potential, not to discriminate over six years of education through a few marks in one exam, and a recognition of the effort it took to reach that level from the point in which they started, by looking at other factors round about the applicants grades. No amount of saying 'end of' will change that.

Sorry, but while I see what you're trying to say, I disagree with it entirely. An AAA student ought to be compared entirely equally with every other AAA student. State school students don't necessarily show any greater intelligence than private school students by getting the same grades! All that proves is that they are probably harder workers/more intelligent than the rest of their class, which is absolutely no grounds for preferential treatment as that still doesn't detract in any way from the achievements of the private school students who will also have worked extremely hard to achieve what they have.