There are two proposals for changing the admissions timetable

An independent schools' leader has said one of the options the government is proposing is "social engineering".

"If social engineering means putting right existing unfairness within the system, then I plead guilty," Mr Rammell responded.

At present, students apply with their predicted A-level grades.

But there are concerns that the system does not accurately reflect the ability of pupils applying for places - as 45% of predicted grades are incorrect.

'Social engineering'

In particular, the grades predicted for less well-off students are likely to be inaccurate, says the minister - fuelling the argument that the system of applying for places before A-level results is weighted towards better-off students.

Bill Rammell says too many predicted grades prove to be inaccurate

David Vanstone, chairman of the Independent Schools Association, questioned whether a proposal for a quota of places to be held back until results were issued was driven more by "social engineering than academic excellence".

But Mr Rammell defended calls to change the admissions process - and said it was not about telling universities whom they should select.

"I think we are absolutely right to want to deal with what is an inherent unfairness in the current system," he said.

Last month, a report by Sir Alan Wilson, director general for higher education in the Department for Education and Skills, set out ways to switch to a system of "post-qualification application" (PQA) - which would mean allocating all or some university places after A-level results.

He suggested that either all places could be allocated after results were issued, or else there could be a hybrid system in which a proportion would be held back for applications after results were known.

'Nightmare'

Mr Vanstone and Dr Martin Stephen, vice-chair of the independent school Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference, were particularly worried by this second option, in which there would be a partial form of applying after A-level results.

Dr Stephen said implementing this two-tier application system, with some places held back, would be a "nightmare".

"It is worrying that it focuses on dogma rather than fairness to individuals," said Mr Vanstone.

Nonetheless both Dr Stephen and Mr Vanstone support the principle of changing to a system where all students know their results before completing the application process.

The Independent Schools Council General Secretary Jonathan Shephard also supports the change to PQA.

There is also a broad political and academic consensus on changing the application system - with support from Universities UK, head teachers' leaders and the cautious approval of the Conservatives.

Consultation on the two options set out by Sir Alan will continue until December - with a report to be published in spring 2006. The system could be in place by the academic year 2008-09, says the Department for Education and Skills.

'Toss a coin'

Two years ago, Mr Rammell's ministerial predecessor, Alan Johnson, announced government backing for a move to applications after results are known.

This was subsequently endorsed by the recommendations of an inquiry into fairer admissions led by Steven Schwartz last year.

Professor Schwartz found the admissions process of interviews and predicted A-level grades was deeply flawed - lacking transparency for students and giving universities inadequate information on which to make decisions.

Universities may as well "toss a coin" as rely on interviews, Professor Schwartz told MPs.

And he warned that relying on predicted grades meant 3,000 students were likely to miss out on course places, because of under-estimated grades.