As an Oxford admissions tutor, I recognise some elements of Jeevan Vasagar's examination of the Cambridge admissions system (G2, 11 January), but not the division drawn between "good" and "poor" schools. Some of us welcome applications from comprehensive school students, not because these candidates can do well in spite of their school, but because their education offers them an excellent foundation for university. Many comprehensives offer imaginative lessons, encourage independent study, and provide an unparalleled social education. Being educated alongside pupils from a wide range of backgrounds gives these candidates the ability to negotiate cultural and social difference in debate, and the confidence to relate abstract or scholarly theory to the wider society in which they live.
They also know that academic success is founded on hard work and effort, not on family background and wealth – the criteria for entry to private schools – or the innate "talent" that selective schools claim to identify. Most importantly, comprehensives still provide far more students with the opportunity to do A-levels and apply to university than do private or state selective schools. They therefore send us candidates who would never otherwise have had the chance of a university education, but who go on to excel. Any weaknesses with comprehensive schools are due to the lamentable lack of government investment in them. It is a tribute to their teaching staff that their students continue to shine.
Dr Selina Todd
St Hilda's College, Oxford