Naturally, parents want their children to go to a good school so that they get a good start in life. If they are rich enough, they can send them to an independent school, with fewer pupils per class and excellent exam results, so that they have __1__ of getting into a good university. However, if you were a rich parent in Britain today, this might be a mistake. Instead, you should send your child to a state school in a poor area with poor exam results. Meanwhile, use your money to hire private tutors. Why is this?

In Britain, it is agreed that the opportunity of a university education should be equally __2__ But there are only enough university places for __3__ Of school leavers. And most of these go to kids from middle-class backgrounds, many from independent schools. For some time, universities have been encouraging __4__ From disadvantaged sections of society. But now they have an extra reason for doing this. If they accept enough students from state schools in poor areas, the government gives them __5__. So now many universities accept these applications even when their exam results are __6__ other applicants they reject.

To some extent, this positive discrimination is logical. It is reasonable to use not only achievement but also __7__ as a criterion for selection. On the other hand, if social background becomes more important than __8__, it makes a mockery of academic standards. In addition, the effect on __9__ applicants should be considered. It is more psychologically damaging to be told __10__ than to be told ‘you did not perform well in that exam’. Moreover, the __11__ outlined above might become widespread. This would give an even greater advantage to rich kids whose parents can afford __12__.