THE stark conclusion from a recent report on the equity of Scottish universities is worth revisiting.

"Scotland’s world-class university sector is a precious national asset... yet... the evidence is unequivocal that this national asset disproportionately benefits those in our most affluent communities.

"Conversely, people in our most deprived communities are much less likely to participate and are even less likely again to attend the most selective institutions.

"Unless we are prepared to accept the notion that Scotland’s talent is concentrated in its most affluent communities, it is clear that, through accident of birth, a whole section of Scottish society has nothing like an equal opportunity to maximise their talent and reap the benefits of higher education."

The comments, included in the interim report of the Commission for Widening Access, present a picture of a higher education system that is "fundamentally unfair" despite attempts to widen access and despite the institutional rhetoric that progress is now being made.

The commission, which is chaired by Dame Ruth Silver, was set up by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in November after concerns initiatives to improve access to university were not making sufficient progress.

Although numbers have improved in recent years just 1,335 school-leavers from the poorest 20 per cent of households went to university in Scotland in 2013/14 compared to 5,520 from the richest 20 per cent of communities.

In universities such as St Andrews, Aberdeen and Edinburgh less than than five per cent of their intake comes from the poorest communities.

Because of the interim nature of the report it comes to no firm conclusions on next steps, but it does pose a series of fundamental questions which are likely to become recommendations by the time the final report is published.

At the heart of the report is the view that efforts to widen access thus far have been hampered by differing views within different universities about what is acceptable on the issue of opening up universities to pupils with lower grades who come from poorer backgrounds.

While accepting that this causes tensions because it is seen in some quarters as a form of positive discrimination which will displace students from more affluent backgrounds the commission calls on all universities to consider this route.

And instead of being detrimental to the principle of academic excellence, as some fear, the move to support students from less affluent backgrounds would enhance excellence, the report suggests.

There are also difficult questions for those who operate university entry systems with the report questioning the fact school attainment is the principal measure used to evaluate and select applicants despite the significant attainment gap between rich and poor.

While the commission concludes that academic attainment will always be a core feature of university entry it says there is increasingly compelling evidence which shows pupils who achieve modestly lower grades in more challenging circumstances consistently operate to the same, or an even better, academic standard than their more advantaged, higher attaining peers.

While contextual admissions which take account of a student wider circumstances are used in universities the commission asks whether this could be done on a much more significant scale, particularly if, as it suggests, entry tariffs are primarily used as a tool for sifting applications in the context of a limited number of places rather than being set in relation to the academic standards required to successfully complete courses.

Just as important is the less obviously signposted issue of funding. The most significant progress on widening access was made in 2013/14 which, the commission notes pointedly, coincided with the injection of extra money to fund new places specifically for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The Scottish Government should also take note.