The government we hear thinks it wrong that elite universities should discriminate in favour of students who achieve the best results. They point out there are others who might be able to achieve whose backgrounds have prevented them. Some of us think it would be a better idea to sort out the worst performing state schools to deal with this problem.
I inivite the government to consider another bad example of discrimination of a similar kind. All my life people like me who love cricket but who cannot play to a high enough standard have been ignored by the England Test Selectors, on the very reasonable grounds that we would not be competitive. I wouldn’t pay good money to see people like me play cricket. Yet isn’t this a bad case of discrimination?
There is age discrimination, as I note they always pick people in their 20s or low 30s, never anyone older. Isn ‘t this discriminating in favour of people who have had privileged sporting backgrounds, as they have been to elite academies which clearly helps them play better than the rest of us? And isn’t it financial discrimination, as most selected have been paid to play cricket, so they get in much more practise than the rest of us who have to earn a living doing something else? Who knows how good the rest of us might be if we practised much of the time and had good coaches.
Isn’t the truth of life this? If you want your country to be good at something you need to discriminate in favour of those who are best trained , most suited and most committed to doing well at their chosen area? Doesn’t that apply to academic as well as sporting life? Isn’t the issue the results of some state schools, not the insistence by top universities on taking the best and the most highly motivated people?