Sterling...
This is what I mean by a crossover between equity and merit.

Merit:
the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.

Equity:
the quality of being fair and impartial

Crossover: it's fair to get what you deserve. A person who rises up from nothing deserves more in my book than somebody born to great privilege who 'makes par' in their educational attainment.

and please desist from accusations of hyperbole or I'll just not bother and you can claim your debating victory. I already said I was using extremes to make a point and I just can't be arsed with needly remarks like that.

If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities.

They are probably going to be working on Sting's new album cover.

Pro USA & Israel

As a cynic or perhaps a realist, I would suggest that when students like these are selected for a hand up it is purely to promote the idea that anyone can succeed in our society.
In theory, they can I suppose but in reality, social position and circumstances prevent most from doing so.

Tokenisms just tell us that the idea of equal opportunity is a fantasy that the ruling class wish to sell us so we all feel happy and content like the happy shoppers we are.
The Left should not be promoting these stories but condemning them. Not that it will make an ounce of difference.

Sterling...

Merit is partly about what you deserve, based on the definition I gave and fairly wide recognition of the word. So a meritocracy is based on what you deserve. And it is fair to get what you deserve. Why is that a construct by me?

A golfer who's never had coaching but regularly makes par after learning to play in the garden using a stick and a tennis ball deserves more investment in his game -- in my view-- than the one who does the same but got coached one on one from the age of 4 with all the best equipment.

If I was Golf England, looking for the next superstar, I know which one I'd invest in.

I'd instinctively think somebody who achieved a lot with so little was the better bet.

And as for your footballing analogy...again, I would look at natural ability if I were a manager. Player 1 who's been coached for thousands of hours and is roughly the same as player 2, who hasn't...I would invest a hell of lot of time in player 2 because I'd think "f*** me, he grew up on the streets, never got coached, and is doing this already".

Ian Wright is an example. Raw but with far more potential than many established pros who probably got into clubs from a very young age. He had loads of flaws in his game, and on many levels was missing key techniques...but he was worth the investment.

I care about direction of travel in an individual. If you think that's a class judgement, then I would strongly disagree. I think it's meritocratic to look at a starting point because it speaks to potential.

If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities.

Earlier this year I was up in Oxford with one of my kids who was interested in one of the courses on offer.

Firstly I get why people rave about it. The colleges are incredible and if you could design your own version of heaven, then I suspect mine would look a lot like many of those admittedly with an Adriatic beach nearby.

An absolutely incredible place but I can also see the danger in why it produces an elite out of touch with the grimmer realities of UK life.

We attended a talk on admissions. The lady stressed that Oxford was desperate to attract more state school kids. But they had to apply. That was the point. My kid's school were useless when it came to offering advice to my child. She still might apply as she is predicted to get the grades but the reality is that many state schools are to blame for not preparing the kids in advance as Oxbridge entry differs from all the rest. That is why the Private schools keep their stranglehold on Oxbridge because they prepare their pupils in advance and support them.

Well done to these kids but more than that, well done to their school for creating an environment in which they have the cajones to go for it. That is the crucial element here.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Not sure I understand, your child passed the Oxford entrance test, or your visit was part of a process and they haven't sat yet?