This is a covert nobbling of poorer students ill-versed in the dark art of "admissions freemasonry"
Never mind Santa, a new class divide rule has come to town. Forget all that complicated stuff about poverty, housing et al, this one is a simple education question: "Could you tell a 14-year-old which subjects are required at GCSE and A-level to take them all the way to study at a top university, such as one in the Russell Group?"
If you think you could do this, and I'm sure the majority of you can, then you are probably middle class. Or it could be that you are not quite sure. Maybe even some of you, or your children, are currently applying for a course at a top university and have already proudly scribbled down A-levels in, say, law, art & design, or business studies. Which tells me, my sweets, that not only are you most probably either working class, or lower middle class, you are also almost definitely screwed.
Ofqual, the exam regulatory body, has instructed universities to simplify their admissions process and stop shrouding requirements in secrecy. Finally, they have noticed what some of us saw as candidates and, later, as parents. Certain applicants (middle class; in good, focused, mostly private, schools; with clued-up parents) are much more likely to be able to "speak uni". By which I mean "decode" the foreign language of the university admissions process.
Meanwhile, less supported candidates are staggering around in what amounts to a game of educational blind man's bluff, unused to the terminology, struggling with forms, writing personal statements unaided, unable even to fund viewing the universities.
Then add the rumours, always strongly denied, of top universities having secret "banned" lists, with certain A-levels deemed Mickey Mouse (law, drama, art, business studies, media studies, theatre studies) and the candidate instantly rejected.
True or not, this is something more privileged candidates would have been made aware of, via parents and tutors, by the time they were queuing for their tuna pasta bake in the fourth-form lunch line. Meanwhile, the clueless "oik" from the state sixth form down the road picks something such as law, thinking it sounds impressive and substantial, not the surest route to the Ucas reject pile.
If this all sounds confusing to the point of unfair, then that's because it is. Who gave universities the right to exclude any of our kids simply because they weren't let in on the dirty little secrets of the admission process? X Factor studies or the Katie Price module are obvious bad subject choices, but, unless one is actually told, who could guess that law or business studies would be so frowned upon?
Worse, all this "can you speak fluent uni?" elitist race-fixing has been going on for as long as anyone can remember. It amounts to outrageous levels of educational apartheid and social engineering – a covert nobbling of poorer students ill-versed in the dark art of "admissions freemasonry". Will the Ofqual wrist slap lead to greater transparency and fairness? Let's hope so. Could there be a government booklet for all 14-year-old pupils spelling out clearly and simply which subjects would work best with which universities and courses? Why ever not?
This is an opportunity for all universities to take a hard look at their admissions procedures. There can be no justifying a system where only informed, supported candidates prosper. Maybe this is something else for the students to protest about – not only those who are forced out of going to university because of finances, but also those who never get there, at least not to one of the top universities, because the odds are stacked against them.
Right now, it's not just the fees that are the problem. Ethically, the system seems rotten to the core.
Robin Hood doesn't make me quiver, either
John Thompson, currently starring in the Robin Hood panto in Canterbury, complained on Facebook that they'd had the "worst audience ever", comprising 80% foreign students who didn't understand the jokes or the panto vibe.
Audience members said that the foreign contingent did seem confused and had perhaps been expecting some highbrow Shakespearean experience, starring Ian McKellen and Judi Dench. But the average panto is so lowbrow it is practically a moustache – overdone swashbuckling, double entendres, cries of: "Behind you!" and wailing schoolchildren.
This must be very discouraging for Thompson and I'm sure Canterbury's Robin Hood is fine family entertainment. Still, I've sat through a few desperately awful pantos, sobbing quietly behind my programme, wondering if I'd voluntarily wandered into a parallel reality that was half-Grimm's fairy tale, half-Confessions of a Window Cleaner.
Pantos have to exist, otherwise there would be so many starving actors we'd need to cull them every Christmas. However, when it comes to feeling baffled or bored by panto, those foreign students are not the only ones. Many British people feel exactly the same.
Less of the butch, Ken Clarke
Justice secretary Ken Clarke has been labelled "soft" by some Tories following his proposals to send fewer offenders to prison and focus on rehabilitation. Maybe that's why he's trying furiously to "butch up".
Clarke criticised "ridiculous" human rights claims after murderer Colin Gunn won the right to be called "Mr" by prison staff. Clarke blasted "ridiculous claims made by ridiculous people". It's the trusty "PC gone mad!" routine, but is it appropriate?
Clarke's plans to keep thousands more out of the cells have been called progressive by supporters and tarted-up cost-cutting by detractors. Either way, why would Clarke object to prisoners wishing to be addressed in a civil, respectful manner?
The success of prisons lies in finding the correct balance between punishment and rehabilitation. If certain prisoners are to qualify to vote in elections, this would mean that they would play much more of a part in society. Rehabilitation can't be just a handy penal catchphrase, it has to work. Therefore the blanket public attitude of "scum" towards the prison population must change. It's "Mr Scum" to you!
Of course I'm joking, but in this case "political correctness gone mad!" is nothing more than common decency. Humiliating adult inmates by refusing to address them by their proper title just seems outdated and unnecessary. And, no, I haven't been watching reruns of Porridge and getting sentimental about lovely, cuddly prisoners cadging snout off that nice Ronnie Barker and Richard Beckinsale.
Mr Gunn is no Fletch, but it debases us all if he is not addressed as "Mr". As for Ken Clarke's macho bristling – if he's worried about the soft tag, he should get one of those stick-on tattoos and flash it about at the next cabinet meeting.