The shame is when students with natural ability are not permitted to capitalize on it due to their socio-economic circumstance. The fix for this is quite easy, it involves affirmative action style measures targeting the grading of students. Essentially a 'B' say from a public school student can be considered an 'A' for grading purposes. If he/she went to a private school the better learning environment would have produced a better work output, lets recognize that fact. But no, if we allow the 'poor' people equal access to tertiary education, and by that I mean the real degrees, law, commerce, medicine etc then the wealthy will be less able to buy their kids a lucrative and respectable position in society. You'll hear all sorts of arguments against it, but in the end you can't go wrong giving intelligent kids (of any background) access to the 1st tier university places.

Leigh:

"The so-called poor in Australia are also thick: that's why they are poor." I assume you are not the exception that proves the rule, Leigh. What's your favourite charity and I'll make a donation forthwith.

The fact of the matter is that ability and intelligence are evenly distributed over the population and to implement social policy on the basis that the poor are undeserving and have no merit is to condemn the nation to mediocrity drawing only on the rich - be they thick or quick.

If want to give opportunity to everyone and build our country we should scrap HECS for the first degree. The logic of HECS is an 18th century view of higher education. Even so there probably is too much emphasis on degrees etc after all it is the bachelors and doctorates that have got us into the current GFC. A few ordinary commonsense people in organisations is what is needed

Dear Spikey
If "ability and intelligence are evenly distributed over the population" what part of that distribution should end up in university? The top 20 percent? 50 percent?
It seems to me that over the past 40 years the percentage of secondary school students going to University has increased markedly, regardless of socio/economic background, from about 15 percent to 30 percent or more. This has been facilitated by relaxing University entry and performance standards from that applying in my era i.e the mid sixties.
So I return to my original question "what part of that distribution should end up in university?"

Since 1990, some sixty thousand Indigenous people have enrolled at universities across Austrralia. About twenty thousand have graduated, and currently about ten thousand are enrolled.

Indigenous women in particular are breaking the mold: in 2006, 2 % of all Indigenous women aged 17 to 65 (2562 out of 127,880) commenced tertiary study, while only 1.88 % of non-Indigenous men (310,000 out of 5,800,000) did so. (ABS Census, 2006, Cat. No. 2068; DEEWR Statistical Collections website). Yes, non-Indigenous men. Non-. Non-Indigenous.

Now, what proportion of Indigenous people would be upper class ? Or middle class ? To use rather old-fashioned terms, wouldn't you say that Indigenous people tend to be working class, or lower class, or even under-class ? Of course, the great majority of Indigenous people are urban, so this may be one factor favouring such high participation rates. But surely this is something like a positive achievement ? If not, what and when ?

Incidentally, of the 24,000 Indigenous graduates, women make up about 16,000 - two-thirds. Currently, one in every 7.2 Indigenous women is a graduate, across the country - probably more like one in six in the cities.

The indigenous ones get preferential entry, they don't pay a nickel for books, they have all kinds of specially employed support people, programs and dedicated staff bending over backward for them. Pity I'm only of a highly persecuted cultural minority, who'd actually have to pay for every expense of books and stuff, and be left to fend for herself as well as navigate the labyrinthine and complex application for admission process as well as campus bureaucracy.