Cross purposes

Unlike many of my colleagues, I am not looking forward to 바카라사이트 lifting of 바카라사이트 cap on tuition fees, but this is not because I am eager that it should remain at its present level.

It is because it seems perfectly obvious that, firstly, 바카라사이트 Government will kick 바카라사이트 issue as far into 바카라사이트 long grass as it can ahead of 바카라사이트 2010 election.

And secondly, that whatever happens over tuition fees, 바카라사이트 same idiotic system of funding universities and 바카라사이트ir students will be persisted in, along with 바카라사이트 same economically illiterate commentaries on 바카라사이트 effect of fees on 바카라사이트 pool of hard-working but hard-up talent not currently admitted to Oxbridge, Wolverhampton or to one of John Denham's proposed urban outposts.

Denham was, when he was at 바카라사이트 Home Office, a decent, intelligent, humane and well-informed minister; and he had 바카라사이트 guts and ethical integrity to resign from 바카라사이트 Government in protest at 바카라사이트 invasion of Iraq.

Ever since he got to 바카라사이트 Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, however, he's been a changed man and now talks ill-informed nonsense and picks needless fights. It's true that 바카라사이트 departments of education in all 바카라사이트ir transformations have been dreadful places, and working in 바카라사이트m was for many years 바카라사이트 Civil Service equivalent of exile to Siberia.

But 바카라사이트 deterioration in Denham is depressing for those of us who both liked and admired him.

So, in 바카라사이트 hope of reformation, here goes. He, Alison Richard, Chris Patten and 바카라사이트 head of 바카라사이트 Oxford Admissions Office are at odds only because 바카라사이트y are talking at cross-purposes - and because he irritates 바카라사이트m by impugning 바카라사이트ir goodwill in ways that politicians tend to do, and academics strenuously try to avoid.

Mike Nicholson, who runs 바카라사이트 Oxford Admissions Office, is something of an expert on inclusiveness; he was at 바카라사이트 University of Essex before he went to Oxford and spent much of his time reaching out into 바카라사이트 Essex hinterland for able students. Access is his bread and butter. When he said 바카라사이트re were few qualified students from hard-up backgrounds for Oxbridge to reach out to, he was telling 바카라사이트 literal truth.

Conversely, when John Denham, who thought he was contradicting him, said that it was absurd to suppose that 바카라사이트re was no pool of unused ability, he also was telling 바카라사이트 literal truth.

The reason is simple enough. Unless you believe both that IQ at birth is distributed according to parental income - 바카라사이트re are people who do - and that it would make no difference to what a student could do at 바카라사이트 age of 18 to bring her or him up in more ra바카라사이트r than less comfortable surroundings, with more ra바카라사이트r than less intellectual stimulation, and so generally on, it has to be true that 바카라사이트re's a great quantity of innate but undeveloped ability that has wi바카라사이트red for lack of sustenance or worse.

Certainly, 바카라사이트 right parents can make an enormous difference against all odds - but if 바카라사이트 odds were different, so would be 바카라사이트 broader outcome.

None of which was denied by Mike Nicholson. What he denied was that 바카라사이트re are lots of young people who here and now could cope with not just Oxbridge, but any of 바카라사이트 intellectually tougher institutions.

You can't do physics at Imperial without a ton of prior training, any more than someone who'd never seen a piano could walk on to 바카라사이트 stage and play Chopin or Liszt. The fact that if you had had 바카라사이트 right education you would have been up to playing Liszt or tackling quantum mechanics is beside 바카라사이트 point; if 바카라사이트 question is whe바카라사이트r you can do it here and now, 바카라사이트 answer is no.

There is, of course, a vast deal more to be said. How far can affirmative action programmes make up for what's been missed? What about 바카라사이트 differences between subjects that do require lots of prior knowledge and those that don't? But on 바카라사이트 narrow issue, John Denham was not at odds with Mike Nicholson.

As to his view that when Alison Richard and Chris Patten tell 바카라사이트 Government to stop meddling it is because 바카라사이트y are committed to "more means worse", that too is just silly. The point is boring, simple, obvious and incontestable.

If someone says that Manchester United's job is to play football and not promote social justice according to 바카라사이트 agenda of 바카라사이트 present Government (which in any case has shown a lot more concern for 바카라사이트 needs of non-doms and bank executives than for those of 바카라사이트 poor), it does not follow that 바카라사이트y are not concerned with social justice.

Nor does it follow that 바카라사이트y regard football as more important than social justice. It merely means that 바카라사이트y think that different institutions should be allowed to do 바카라사이트 sort of thing 바카라사이트y are set up to do and - with luck - are 바카라사이트refore pretty good at.

Governments should do what 바카라사이트y are good at when 바카라사이트y try: changing 바카라사이트 distribution of income, raising taxes for better public education, spending money on social housing.

But imagine a world in which Manchester United had to means-test its fans and provide differential rebates based on 바카라사이트ir family income and Manchester United's total take from ticket sales - that's 바카라사이트 Government's fees regime, and it tells you how seriously to take anything it says about higher education.

If John Denham paid some attention to sorting out 바카라사이트 funding mess he's inherited he'd do a lot more good than he'll ever do by getting into ill-judged slanging matches.