A 21st Century reworking of the old proverb about freedom fighters, terrorists and guerrillas, illustrating the subjective ethical reporting of otherwise objective facts, suggests a certain verb conjugates as: "I inform. You brief. He, She, or It spins. We correct the record. You reinterpret the facts. They cause an irrevocable breakdown in trust".

This principle is illustrated nowhere better than in the mixed reporting of the leaked conclusions of a report published yesterday by a Government "task force" (Guardian,3605,1046834,00.html ), "steering group" (Times,,171-827481,00.html ) and "inquiry" (BBC ) on how to attract more "youngsters" from "non-typical" backgrounds to enrol on university courses. These measures have been attacked by some quarters as discriminatory social engineering dumbing down entry requirements, whilst described by others as a positive chance to give people from a poor background the opportunity to get into universities currently crowded with middle class students from Middle England and public school toffs. The truth, as ever, probably lies somewhere in between.

The aptly named "Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group" was set up to investigate ways of furthering New Labour's drive to broaden the range of social groups that apply to study at universities. The particular political importance (indicated by the speculative leaking of its conclusions days in advance) of the report from an otherwise obscure committee is largely due to the fact that universities will have to demonstrate their commitment to "widening access". This "demonstration" of commitment to the planned university regulator, the Office of Fair Access (Offa, or OfToff as it has become known to critics), will be required before universities may be allowed to charge top-up fees, and is likely to take the form of a statement subscribing to the Governments suggested access widening methods.

Proposals in the report include post A-Level applications, giving would-be students the opportunity to be judged on their actual, rather than predicted, performance in A-Levels. Other suggestions include yet more exams, including SAT's and Psychometric tests in what appears to be an admission that A-Levels are no longer a reliable predictor of scholastic aptitude.

However the greatest controversy surrounds the proposal that students from particularly disadvantaged schools be given lower entry requirements than those from the independent sector. Independent schools, predictably, are claiming unfair discrimination, and have in the past gone as far to attempt to boycott,,1-3564-830263,00.html Bristol University when it admitted it had such a policy. However, reports have in the past demonstrated that students from failing schools generally go on to get better university grades than those from independent schools, leading to the polarised arguments between those claiming that the rich effectively buy undeserved grades and those that blame the state secondary school system for failing to fully realise their students potential. Nonetheless Universities may find themselves being forced to offer additional support to some students to bring everyone up to the same level.

Meanwhile, what does the report itself say? Typically for a document produced on a highly sensitive subject its message is somewhat ambiguous composed largely of questions and re-defining issues rather than conclusions and new proposals.

Examples include: "But should the academic standards required in courses need to change to accommodate changes in admissions practices? Or should students be guided to the type and level of courses best suited to their abilities and aspirations?" and "It should be noted that there are different interpretations of retention: does it imply graduation, or can it mean successful completion of part of the course?".

With few genuinely new suggestions (Bristol has already operated differing entry standards, Queen Mary's has selected successful applicants at random, and Oxford has started to operate it's own entry tests) in the report, the main contribution to the ongoing debate on higher education is new jargon such as the cuddly "non-retention" in place of "drop outs".

With media on the political right raging against discrimination and media on the left lauding measures taken to widen participation, one can expect more heat and less light.