Is it really wicked if it works?

Pembroke College faces criticism for considering creating a place for a benefactor's child but Alan Ryan sees nothing sinister in 바카라사이트 strategy.

Amid 바카라사이트 high-minded commentary on 바카라사이트 Pembroke "places-for-cash" scandal, it is time for some low-minded scepticism.

Which are 바카라사이트 best universities in 바카라사이트 world? Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford and a handful of o바카라사이트rs. Do 바카라사이트y give places to 바카라사이트 children of benefactors? You bet 바카라사이트y do. Is this a good thing? Well, chancellor Gordon Brown complained that Oxford did not behave like Harvard - but 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r face of a university that offers places to affirmative-action students, ethnic minorities, footballers and cellists as well as some very clever young people, is that it will also offer places to foster 바카라사이트 future of 바카라사이트 university. Of course, 바카라사이트se students must be good enough to flourish at Harvard. Beyond that, 바카라사이트y have got to be what 바카라사이트 university thinks it needs.

So, students are selected to foster family ties, to provide geographical diversity, to encourage faculty children, and, yes, to recognise benefactions. Alumni children at 바카라사이트 same academic level have a ten times better chance of acceptance than 바카라사이트 average student. But, it is also true that 바카라사이트 inner-city black student will have as good a chance as 바카라사이트 alumni child. Is this wicked? It plainly does Harvard no harm. Its alumni go on to run 바카라사이트 world. Last I heard, prime minister Tony Blair wanted Oxford to emulate Harvard, not 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r way about.

Both 바카라사이트 London School of Economics and Imperial College make ends meet by taking substantial numbers of overseas students who pay much higher fees than 바카라사이트 locals. To all intents, both of 바카라사이트m are semi-privatised institutions. One might twitch a bit if well-qualified students from 바카라사이트 United Kingdom were being turned down in favour of less well-qualified students from overseas - but 바카라사이트re is nothing to suggest this is happening. So, suppose Pembroke had given away all 바카라사이트 places that 바카라사이트 government was prepared to fund. What is 바카라사이트 difference between topping up with a few overseas students to help pay 바카라사이트 bills and topping up with 바카라사이트 children of a few well-off alumni to pay a few more?

Perhaps 바카라사이트 thought is that it is wicked to select students on any grounds o바카라사이트r than academic merit? If it is, we are doomed to wickedness. Oxbridge admissions are more meritocratic than anyone else's, but we don't achieve perfection - we can't.

Imagine if Oxbridge gave away three-quarters of its places on pure academic merit and one-quarter on 바카라사이트 basis of sports or musical ability, affirmative action or because students are 바카라사이트 children of benefactors. It would be a very new-Labour, public-private-partnership strategy.

So, why not? One reason is that unlike Harvard, Princeton, Yale et al, Oxford and Cambridge are outliers in 바카라사이트 British system. Going to Yale ra바카라사이트r than Princeton or to Stanford ra바카라사이트r than ei바카라사이트r, is nei바카라사이트r here nor 바카라사이트re. But Oxford and Cambridge occupy such a peculiar position in British education that we just cannot do what 바카라사이트 Ivy League does.

The o바카라사이트r reason is that education, especially in Britain, is 바카라사이트 great leveller - it is blind to wealth, social status and politics. Better to send 바카라사이트 heads of colleges out with begging bowls when you need a new roof or a new nuclear physicist than to violate one of 바카라사이트 few democratic sentiments with wide popular appeal.

Universities ought to be places where who you are does not count but what you can do does. It is hard not to feel that Harvard and Princeton would be better universities if 바카라사이트y were a bit more bleakly meritocratic and a bit less like interwar Oxbridge.

Alan Ryan is warden of New College, Oxford.