Can the coalition succeed where Labour failed, to make university admissions follow A-level results?
"Post-qualification university admissions in England. Where have I heard that before?"
So tweeted Professor Steven Schwartz, now vice-chancellor of Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, but also, significantly, the man who was once Labour's university admissions "tsar".
He was responding to reports this month that suggested fundamental changes to England's higher education application process, also affecting the timing of school exams. They might be introduced after two years.
"Sixth-formers are to be spared the agony of waiting for A-level results before knowing if they have won a place at their chosen university under a plan to overhaul the Ucas [Universities and Colleges Admissions Service] system," one newspaper had reported. "Final school examinations will be taken weeks earlier and the autumn university term pushed back if the changes, to be revealed in a white paper, win support."
Schwartz was right to detect a note of familiarity in the reports. For what they did not mention was that Labour had actually sought for years, without success, to introduce changes with exactly the same aim as those now seemingly being put forward by the coalition.
In fact, back in 2004, an inquiry Schwartz led into university admissions had concluded that such a system would be "fairer and more transparent".
The story of the years since strikes many – including Schwartz himself – as a failure to achieve the goals David Willetts, universities minister, is reported now to be aiming at.
So what has gone wrong? And what are the prospects that such a reform might work this time?
Since the 1990s, a consistent criticism has been made of the university admissions system: it is largely based on pupils' predicted grades at A-level, rather than their actual results.
Because applications have to be submitted to universities by 15 January, they can only include teachers' forecasts of students' likely grades in A-levels that will be completed in the summer, rather than their actual achievements.
But this creates a problem. There is evidence that predictions are inaccurate in as many as 55% of cases. Students, therefore, face injustice if they are predicted lower grades by teachers than they go on to achieve.
It has long been argued that the system risks harming disadvantaged students' chances in particular. John Morgan, a former president of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) who has been involved in discussions over reform for eight years, says many disadvantaged pupils are on a "faster upward trajectory" in the sixth form than their better-off peers, improving sharply towards the end of their courses. Thus, they would benefit from later applications.
The need for change has been acknowledged officially for more than a decade, with Ron Dearing, in his 1997 higher education report, which paved the way for tuition fees, and Mike Tomlinson, in a report on A-levels in 2002, both concluding that university admissions should not be based on predicted grades.
The question has always been: how to achieve this? With A-level results published in mid-August and university terms starting in some cases in early September, there is little time as it stands to process applications.
Labour's attempt at reform began in earnest in 2005, as it responded to the Schwartz review with a consultation paper putting forward a host of recommendations, including two alternative options that would eventually have introduced a version of a post-qualifications admissions (PQA) system.
One would have seen all students submitting applications to university only after A-level results were published. The second would have seen them put in "expressions of interest" to universities well before results were released, universities then making offers of places to some students, but some places being reserved for after results came out.
However, Labour shelved the move in 2006 after both options were rejected by the consultees, two-thirds of whom were from universities.
Instead, it published another paper with less radical recommendations, including setting aside a week after A-levels in the applications process when students achieving better-than-expected grades could apply to more prestigious universities. This proposal, a so-called adjustment period, has happened.
But other recommendations, including a stipulation that exam boards should bring forward A-level results day by a week to free up more time for the applications process, have not ... until now, at least.
The other radical changes suggested – bringing school exams forward or putting back university terms to leave space for admissions – have long been ideas in the background of this debate but have hit firm obstacles, observers say.
Schools would be reluctant to lose more teaching time by scheduling exams earlier, while there has been huge resistance among universities to any delay in term dates, especially given that the foreign students on whom they increasingly rely for income expect to be able to start university in early autumn.
John Dunford, ASCL's former general secretary, who has been involved in discussions on PQA since 1994, stresses universities' role in the failure so far to effect change, but says all parties need to compromise.
Given the history, is there any chance this latest plan will come to fruition? One who believes not is Schwartz himself. Asked if PQA had any chance of working this time, he replies: "None whatsoever."
He says: "Everyone who has looked at the issue ... concurs: PQA is the only sensible way to proceed. Only universities object, usually on the grounds that waiting for A-level results before making admissions decisions would leave insufficient time for them to fully evaluate applications.
"The force of this objection is reduced considerably when these same universities make instant admission decisions during clearing. A few cynical types have suggested that admissions tutors dislike PQA because all the work will take place in the summer."
Universities UK, the lobby group, says in a statement that universities have supported PQA, but then adds that for it to work "it must be compatible with both the university and school year, and the timing of national examinations".
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is itself cautious, saying only that "there's a likelihood that we might look at PQA" in the white paper, due in the spring.
Some remain optimistic that PQA can happen. Edexcel, the exam board, says it is confident it could release A-level results a week early if asked. And, as Education Guardian was going to press, an exams source told this newspaper that A-level and GCSE results are indeed being moved forward by a week from 2012.
Morgan, a headteacher who also sits on the board of Ucas, says that admissions staff in universities have been quietly warming to PQA in recent years, partly for financial reasons: having students apply after they know their grades would cut down on "wasted" applications, thus reducing overheads, he says.
For Dunford, progress on PQA has been painfully slow, but this would make it no less sweet if finally achieved. One suspects he should not hold his breath.