The recent appointment of Professor Peter Scott as the first Commissioner for Fair Access in higher education was a welcome move.
Children from our most deprived areas are four times less likely to go to university than their peers in affluent parts of Scotland - a genuine scandal.
Part of this access gap is down to the school system. Standards in primaries and secondaries differ greatly and the gulf can be immense by the time pupils sit their Highers.
However, universities also have responsibilities in this area. Grades achieved at school are not the only route to higher education and schemes exist to increase working class participation rates.
One such route is 'articulation', which allows college students with a Higher National qualification to start a university course at a later stage like second year.
This is an excellent scheme: poor children are much more likely to go to college initially and articulation provides a bridge that does not require a costly six years of study.
But not all universities have embraced this initiative with enthusiasm. Many post-1992 institutions have an impressive record in this regard, but they are let down by some of the ancients.
For instance, while Glasgow Caledonian had over 1500 examples of articulation in 2014/15, the figure at St Andrews was 29.
In a talk to stakeholders last week, Professor Scott suggested that one of the reasons for low articulation rates was a “prejudice” against vocational education.
He also linked poor articulation rates by universities to fears that an institution’s league table standing may be harmed.
Whatever the merits of the Professor’s arguments, he is surely correct to identify the fact that existing access schemes are not being used to maximum effect.
Free university tuition, which is the signature policy of the SNP Government, begins to look hollow if higher education disproportionately benefits the middle class.
The twin track solution is obvious. School standards must improve and universities, which receive a huge amount of public subsidy, should be compelled to accept more students from poorer backgrounds.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here