it's like they're trying to prove their own worth by targeting those who don't fit their "ideal" mold. it's all about perceived privilege and the notion that only certain types of students have what it takes to succeed. but isn't it a bit unfair to assume that someone just because they came from a private school or had access to certain resources? doesn't experience and dedication count for something?and think about the fact that top universities are basically creating their own echo chamber, where only those who already fit in have any chance of getting in. it's like they're saying, "we'll let you in if you've been groomed to succeed by our very own system." what happens when someone doesn't fit into that mold? do they just get left behind?
i think universities need to take a step back and reevaluate their approach to admissions. instead of trying to create some sort of meritocracy, maybe they should focus on creating an environment where everyone has an equal chance to succeed, regardless of background. after all, isn't education supposed to be about more than just getting a good job? shouldn't it be about personal growth and fulfillment too?
? who says targeting specific schools is even a good idea? it's like, Cambridge thinks they're doing us all a solid by excluding state school students, but really they're just being extra exclusive 
. and what even is this "reverse discrimination" thing? sounds like someone's trying to deflect from their own biases 
.
. and btw, what's with all this fuss over "natural merit" anyway? talent can exist anywhere, not just in private schools 
.
, sounds like it's gonna be a total game-changer in the whole social mobility thing 
. let's get real and acknowledge that privilege plays a major role in who gets into these top-tier universities 
. time to shake things up, amirite?