By Mike Baker BBC education correspondent

What a sudden panic we have had over university admissions. Who could have predicted that top independent schools would decide to boycott Bristol University, one of their pupils' favourite destinations?

Or that the admissions arrangements at a single university other than Oxford or Cambridge should be front page news?

The educational world really is turned upside down when boycotts are being staged by the head teachers of some of the most prestigious, and expensive, schools and by the education secretary himself who, if you recall, is boycotting the National Union of Teachers' annual conference.

In the good old days it was radical students and militant teacher unions which did all the boycotting. But it is the 1960s and 1970s generation which now fills the ranks of head teachers and senior politicians.

Social engineering

There are other parallels with that period. 'Social engineering' was a phrase much bandied about in the vociferous debate over the spread of comprehensive schools and the decline of academic selection at age 11.

Now that charge is being repeated and, once more, against a Labour government. Only this time the focus is on selection at 18, not at 11.

Similar arguments are being employed and similar lobby groups and interests are squaring up.

Comprehensive schools were promoted as a more equitable form of education, which would redress the failure of secondary schools to do well by the less able and the children of the lower social classes.

The argument for wider access to university follows a similar line, pointing out that, for all the expansion in higher education, gaining a degree remains largely the preserve of the middle classes.

On merit?

The defenders of the 11-plus examination believed the grammar schools were meritocratic institutions which guaranteed quality education irrespective of parents' social class background or ability to pay.

They argued the grammar schools simply took the best on the basis of a competitive exam.

Now the critics of the government's plans to widen access are employing the same argument: Entry to university should be entirely on academic merit, as measured by performance in the A-level examinations.

The one difference between the debate over grammar schools then and the row over universities now is that the form of selection at 11 was more explicit.

There is no single entrance test for universities, although some would like to see the American SAT examination introduced in Britain.

Each university has its own admission arrangements. Many methods have been tried and all have been found wanting in some respect. The task is particularly difficult for very popular universities like Bristol.

Competition

It stands accused of discriminating against pupils from good schools, both state and private, because it makes slightly lower A-level offers to applicants from low-performing schools.

A few facts may help. Bristol receives almost 40,000 applications each year for just over 3,000 undergraduate places. In some subjects - such as history, English, economics or law - there are 30 people competing for each place.

In English, about 1,500 people have applied for 47 places this year. About 1,300 of them are predicted by their schools to get the minimum requirement of two As and one B. Of these, 500 are expected to get a perfect score of three grade As.

So hundreds of "straight A" students will be rejected every year, whatever method the university uses.

The dramatic examples of bright students rejected by Bristol, highlighted in one newspaper this week, simply underline how tough, and heart-breaking, the admissions process is. It does not prove discrimination.

Bristol says all it does is to make marginally lower offers to pupils with high potential from low-performing schools. In popular departments, this means an A, B, B offer instead of an A, A, B.

No dumbing-down

This is done to encourage pre-A-level applicants who might otherwise fear that Bristol was not for the likes of them.

In fact, most students exceed these offers. So there has been no 'dumbing-down' at Bristol. Indeed, the average A-level point score of successful applicants has gone up, not down, in recent years.

But the Bristol case has wider ramifications at a time when the government has stated its intention (backed up by cash) to recruit and retain students from a wider range of backgrounds.

The proposed new "access regulator" will not allow universities to charge higher tuition fees until satisfied that institutions are doing all they can to broaden their intake.

That is why there is fear in the air.

Ministers insist there will be no targets or quotas for numbers of working-class students.

However, the higher education minister, Margaret Hodge, had to be over-ruled by the education secretary this week when she appeared to propose just such a target at a particularly embarrassing moment.

Solomon's judgement

For the independent schools this is understandably a worry. One of their unique selling points is their ability to get pupils into good universities.

If they cease to be a passport to good universities, their customers might wonder what they are paying for.

Universities, though, simply want the best students. But that does not necessarily mean those with the best A-level results. They want those with the greatest potential for study in higher education.

So how should they judge applicants? These days most universities do not interview applicants. This is mainly because it would take too long but also because all the research shows that interviewing tends to be inequitable.

That leaves the student's own personal statement on the Ucas form and the head teacher's reference. Sadly, both of these can reflect parental and school help, not just a student's ability.

So A-levels remain the main indicator but since the playing-field is not level - schools have different levels of funding, resources, class-size and teacher quality - some universities want to take other factors into account.

It is an extremely difficult task and few could envy the Solomon-like judgement required of admissions tutors.

One thing is clear, though: More than ever before, universities will need to convince schools and the public that the admissions processes are equitable. That will require greater openness.

The current furore at Bristol should encourage others to go public with their selection criteria not sit quietly hoping the storm will pass them by.