So, you're saying rich parents>intelligence? Someones parents may have paid thousands of pounds, but if the kid's not clever, then that simply won't cut it for top universities. A clever kid who has been let down by bad schooling is more deserving IMO. Also, it's been proven that state school students on average achieve better on their degree.(Original post by Lafin23)
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.
And the 2nd sentence is a load of crap, it doesn't matter what you are compared to your year, just how clever YOU are full stop.
We have the answer...