Is the attempt to attract more working-class youngsters into universities essential for social justice and the economy, or is it a costly and futile bit of social engineering?

Evidence for both points of view is to be found in the National Audit Office's report on "Widening Participation in Higher Education", published just in time to influence the final stages of the government's major review of student support.

It points out that, despite the huge expansion of higher education, the proportion of young people from poorer homes getting into university has not changed at all over the past decade.

It also notes that such students are one-third less likely to be accepted at some universities than those from higher social classes.

Gloomy picture

Indeed, the picture it paints for students from poorer homes is gloomy: they are less likely to get into university, they are more likely to drop-out and, even if they do gain a degree, the salary premium they achieve by their graduate status is less than that for those from better-off homes.

So, one clear interpretation of the NAO report is that government policies to broaden university access are failing and that students from poorer backgrounds are not being treated well.

It is a powerful argument for the government to reintroduce student grants, at the very least for the less well-off.

However, it is also possible to construct another argument, namely that the policy is not so much failing as mistaken. The report provides some evidence for this.

Mistaken policy

It finds that the main reason why working-class students are not going to university is that they do not get the qualifications required and that, financially, there is little incentive for them to go and no incentive for the government to waste money on students who are not up to the mark and who are more likely to flunk their courses.

The Daily Telegraph newspaper tends towards this latter view.

Under a headline declaring "Dropout students cost �150 million", its story focussed on the taxpayers' money that is being wasted each year "by recruiting poorly qualified students who have no hope of graduating".

The National Audit Office report is, as you would expect from an independent watchdog, free from ideological bias.

That is why it paints a picture which, while revealing, is also complex.

Admirably, if frustratingly from a journalistic perspective, it refuses to draw simple conclusions for the failure to attract a higher proportion of working-class students into our universities.

Different aspirations

But it does highlight many areas which need action.

It shows that a key problem is one of aspiration.

Youngsters from working-class homes are, quite simply, unlikely even to aim for a university degree.

Many young people are deterred by the cost of going to university

Statistically, white working-class boys are the most under-represented group, with only around 13% of them going to university compared to an overall participation figure of over 30%.

Another major obstacle is that children from poorer homes do less well at school.

By the age of 16 so many of them have already ruled themselves out of getting a university place on the grounds of their academic achievements alone.

And that is not all: many of those working-class youngsters who do overcome the obstacles of low family ambition and school failure then go on to make poor decisions about courses, have unrealistic expectations of university or are deterred by financial problems.

However, that still doesn't seem reason for throwing in the towel and concluding it is a waste of money trying to widen university participation.

Start early

These obstacles need not be insurmountable.

One solution is to start early.

That is why universities like Nottingham Trent are starting to work with school pupils while they are still at primary school.

The idea is to engage them - before disaffection with school sets in - to raise their ambitions, help them achieve the qualifications they need, and ensure they get the right advice over choice of courses, universities and help with finance.

In other words, trying to persuade youngsters of the value of university at 18 is too late. It's even too late at 16.

The process has to begin at, say, 11 when there is still time to aim for, and achieve, the qualifications needed not only to get in to university but also to succeed there.

Government responsibility

But if universities could do more, so too could the government.

First it could give universities more financial help to run campaigns like this.

At present universities receive an income premium of just 5% for each student they recruit from poorer neighbourhoods.

Increasing that premium would allow more to initiate schemes like Nottingham Trent's.

Student finance

The second thing the government could do is something to end the uncertainty and confusion over the financial support available for students.

The NAO report clearly states that many potential students are put off by the cost of going to university and the complexity of the financial aid packages that are available.

The NAO's calculation of the costs of university shows the need for change.

Working on figures from 1998-99, it found that the average cost of three years at university was around �16,300 while the maximum loan and grant (before abolition) amounted to around �10,800.

In other words you cannot achieve a degree without either parental support or commercial loans on top of the usual student loans.

That is a clear deterrent for people from family backgrounds where there is no spare money and which are averse to going into debt.

So, as the government completes its review of student support - amid signs that it is backing off its initial idea of paying for a return to grants by imposing a graduate tax - this is a timely warning of the obstacles that still lie in the way of widening university participation.