Education Secretary Charles Clarke has announced the Office for Fair Access, a new watchdog to ensure people from poorer families get into university.

The watchdog supports the government's target to have half of all young people entering higher education by 2010 but critics say middle class children will be disadvantaged by the regulation.

Can an access regulator really make education more equal? Do you welcome the aim to encourage poorer students to go into higher education? Is the government target of 50% going to university a sensible one?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

Your reaction

This plan is complete social engineering. I accept that some poorer students don't always have the chance to live up to their potential, but deciding whether universities can raise tuition fees on the number of 'poor' students they accept is nothing more than scandalous. This is an example of social engineering in its most repugnant. It must be stopped if the degree is to be important.
Chris Hawes, Great Britain

trying to get everyone into university has only lessened the status of the degree, making it rather useless M Whyman, UK

I hate to have to say this, but I think the only reason why this problem has come about, is because for some reason, it was decided that university should be something accessible to all, with so called "Mickey mouse" degrees coming in to play. University should be left to those who truly need a degree to get into the professional jobs, and, I'm sorry to offend, but to those students who are the best academically. No matter what their background or financial situation. If we carried on this way, we would not find ourselves in the current mess we are in. It is obvious that trying to get everyone into university has only lessened the status of the degree, making it rather useless.
M Whyman, UK

University degrees do not give you the right to think you should get a job. It's hard work and a respect for seniors that allow any individual with common sense to progress a career. Most of my friends that left after A-Levels are more successful now than those that went to university. Luckily my company recognises this and is not biased in graduates favour.
Marc, UK

Are the government, student loans company and banks in on this together? If one in two people are going to have a degree, but not one in two jobs requires a degree, aren't we just going to have a load over qualified, skint 21 year olds?
Paul, UK

I arrived at Oxford just after Brideshead first appeared on TV. I came up through the state secondary system (when it still worked). The Brideshead tag was pretty dumb then - and that was 25 years ago! Politicians are trotting out slogans from generations ago to disguise the fact that they've screwed up state secondary schooling over that quarter century. Quotas are demeaning and distracting.
Don, UK

University now seems pointless Brian, England

I have recently graduated from university and can say that it now seems pointless. I cannot get a job and am having to temp at various places here and there while still trying to find a permanent job. I wish I'd had left after A-levels now.
Brian, England

The government are utterly clueless about the issue of university access. I graduated, as a mature student, in 1999 having spent most of my savings: these were fairly substantial. I then went through a year of unemployment and a further year of unsatisfactory jobs. Three and a half years later I still haven't paid off my overdraft and the bank charges me 14% on this. What chance would an 18 year old undergraduate stand in a similar situation?
John R., UK

I agree that we should encourage students from a wider background to go to our top universities. But in doing so under this new system we will have to convince our poorest students to pay amongst the highest fees!
Shane Phillips, UK

I really am not sure that widening access to Uni is a good idea Caroline Brown, England

As the parent of a university student who has to foot the bill for the current tuition fees, I feel they're already high enough thank you. I really am not sure that widening access to Uni is a good idea. Many people would benefit more from part time study and work. My profession, accountancy, is a good example of this. I learned more from dealing with one real set of accounts than I did from 10 book exercises. Shoving people willy-nilly through the university system is only going to devalue degrees to the point where you need one to become a dustman.
Caroline Brown, England

I'm a student at Oxford, and I come from a London comprehensive. BBCi's coverage of the Boat Race did everything it could to play up the Oxbridge stereotypes. This damaging portrayal plays a part in undoing the good work the Access schemes have done for last few years. The government isn't really helping either with its talk of "access watchdogs" (about half the cabinet went to Oxford or Cambridge). The best universities should take the best students. We have to work on making sure the best students apply.
Kat, Oxford, UK

My husband and I are self-employed and work very hard to send our five children to good schools, and have opted for fee-paying schools for two of them as our local school is not good enough. My children are doing very well and one has a scholarship to help with fees due to his ability. However - we are deemed "middle-class" and I doubt we can afford to send them all to University, particularly when our twins turn comes round. How do I tell them that all their hard work still means that they may not get accepted on their chosen course as we are not deemed poor? Or that if they do go, they will owe thousands when they leave and still may not get a good job?
Jeanette, UK

The government target is going to devalue the qualification Lucy, Devon, UK

It is absolutely correct to make sure that poorer students should be allowed the same education opportunities as other 'middle class' students. But surely, the government target of 50% of the population going to university, is going to devalue the qualification of the degree? Does that mean that in the future you will need a degree to apply to be a road sweeper or else you won't be considered?
Lucy, Devon, UK

As a former UK state-sector teacher, I was constantly told that my expectations of pupils was too high, especially in 'working-class' area schools. Until this archaic idea that university is only suitable for children from middle-class backgrounds is got rid of, the UK is going to continue to lose a lot of good potential university candidates from 'poorer' backgrounds.
M J, Canada (ex-UK)

You can guarantee that the best way for completely foul the admissions process is for politicians to stick their fingers in. The best chance you can give to kids in poorer areas is better support for them during secondary education, not to introduce politically motivated discrimination.
Simon, UK

Of course entrance to university should be on ability. But there are families so poor in this country that it is not a viable prospect for them to take a loan to go to university. You can have every university bending over backwards, but these kids still cannot afford to go.
A Legge, UK

Entry to university should be on ability alone Helen, UK

50% is a insane figure, all it will do is mean to get any decent jobs you have to stay on and do post-grad, which again will bring it back to the position where only the people with money will get the good jobs as the middle class/poorer students will have to leave after their first degree and get jobs to pay of their debts. Entry to university should be on ability alone and the money/regulation should be aims at schools to give everyone an equal chance
Helen, UK

50% of the population in higher education... what is the point then? When I went to University it was the top 20% who went and the courses were difficult (My experience is of the Scottish Education System). I fail to see how 50% of the population could have completed this course... Are the courses becoming easier to enable more people to be able to do them? This undermines the whole point of the system... what happened to HND's and HNCs?
Joanne Mercer, Belgium (Ex UK)

All this will achieve is a lowering of educational standards. We have a wonderful habit of lowering everything to the lowest common denominator. The only thing that should determine entry into university is academic achievement and qualifications. As long as they make the grade they should have an equal chance of going to University.
Kevin Parker, England

I have been admitting students regularly from areas identified as 'widening participation', or 'excellence in the cities'. Most cope but some struggle terribly and this type of experience is not productive for these kids. I agree universities can do more in the way of outreach programmes to attempt to attract talent but we should resist any tampering or pressure to lower our entry requirements.
Dr Chris Taylorson, England

All they have to do is fix the secondary schools Emma, UK

If the government wants more state school people entering higher education, all they have to do is fix the secondary schools. In my experience, poor careers advice, low expectations of the teachers, total lack of teaching materials, indifferent tuition, utter contempt of schoolchildren and even one of my own parents for "reading too many books", and the constant pressure to get a real job in order to help out the family turned me from a hopeful 16-year-old with 10 grade A O-levels, to a confused low-achiever who scraped by at a third rate college. The issues facing working class people in education should be addressed before we look at admissions procedures.
Emma, UK

I was one of only two people in my year of 80 at school who graduated from university. At university, I was in classes with people far less able then some of my school mates who would never have even considered university as an option. It's up to schools to teach people from poorer backgrounds that it is a viable option for them.

I do not think this in any way discriminates against middle class students. At the moment, the top few percent of poorer pupils go to university, while the majority of middle class pupils get places. This should be balanced out so it is the cleverest pupils only get to university regardless of background.
FN, UK

All students are equal if they get the grades Zoe, UK

Education is a great leveller and all students are equal if they get the grades. We should feel proud that it is possible for anyone to enter our country's best academic institutions on merit. Universities are not responsible for the previous 13 years of students' education. There will always be more students from private schools getting better grades because such schools are often selective anyway and pick out the brightest to attend. How can the universities be blamed if many pupils who get good A-level grades do not apply? If they don't want to apply, fair enough!
Zoe, UK

How can Oxbridge shake a "Brideshead Image" with ministers constantly referring to it as such? Oxford has a good spread of the most talented individuals from many different backgrounds at the moment - achieved by rigorous screening procedures based on ABILITY.
Lucy, UK

It is a grave mistake to devalue university education by aiming to have half the population attending. A degree used to be a sign of high intellectual ability and achievement, it is now little more than a sign that the person concerned sat at a desk for a further three years. Let us go back to rigorous selection on intellectual ability only.
Kate C, England

How will an access regulator ensure university applications from pupils with poorer backgrounds when they are already being put off by the huge amounts of tuition fees they will have to pay?
Charlotte Goodall, UK

There should be only one criterion for admission: Ability. If the government is concerned that those in poor state schools are placed at a disadvantage in demonstrating their ability, then it is the schools, not the universities, which require legislation.
Finalist, UK

This must be against the human rights of middle class children Andy Mac, Scotland

This is one of the government's most disgraceful decisions. This must be against the human rights of extremely able middle class children. 50% going into higher education is a complete nonsense and sends out all the wrong signals (that being 'brainy' is somehow better). As for encouraging poorer students, the government's general attitude to higher learning (loans etc) means that these are the students who are going to have the biggest debts on graduation.
Andy Mac, Scotland

Of course this will not make things fairer. Universities now discriminate against children who, not by their choice, attend public schools. We have scrimped to keep my daughter at public school, aiming to give her the best possible start. Now she is being told not to bother to apply to places such as Bristol, Durham and Warwick as they take very few students from fee-paying schools. How can this be fair? Surely it should be done on ability not post code?!
Christine Gawen, England

I understand Christine being upset, because she wants the best for her children, but I also think that students shouldn't be stopped from reaching their potential because their parents can't pay for education. The government should stop wasting time telling us they want to send 50% of the population to university and invest in raising the standards of all schools, therefore providing everyone with a comparably high level of education regardless of wealth.
Kwame, England

If only there were enough graduate positions around for all these people. Being a graduate no longer always means that you will earn any more than somebody of the same age that left school at 16 - despite what schools, the government and banks (who dish out student loans and overdrafts very happily) tell you.
J, UK

The responsibility for encouraging poorer applicants to apply for university should lie with the secondary education system. If this wasn't such a failure the pressure wouldn't have to be put on the universities.
Ed Pitt, UK