Onto the substance – I do not agree with you that the role of universities should be to educate gifted people (however that is defined). No surpise there. But I do agree that we need a broader debate over the role of universities in society today. And I agree that vocational education should hot primariliy be the task of universities – personally I would like to see an expansion of apprenticeship programmmes. Univerisities should have a major role in the development of knowledge within the community – and that includes an extended and distributed community. But that means also re-examining how we fund universities as well as curricula and pedagogic approaches.

Can I get away with ‘it should be a place where potentially excellent people develop their potential’? That’s a significant pedagogic shift; no more spoon feeding, no more dumbing down, no more remedial courses. I’m involved in this never-ending debate with my fellow Instructional Designers; any good coach knows you play to your strengths and not your weaknesses.

Don’t for a moment think I’m callous enough to abandon those of greatest need – but University is not the place for them until they can handle it. It might feel obliged to provide off-campus facilities or an outreach program to accommodate those in need of make up classes but the intellectually gifted should have one haven in their life where they can just get on with achieving their potential.

Mention a sports academy or an apprenticeship for a promising athlete or a modeling school for a pretty girl (‘or boy’, the 21st century man interjects) and there’s no problem with that. Mention a similarly exclusive environment for the gifted individual and just try to ride out the cries of ‘Elitist!’.

And yes, I can hear Davina McCall banging on the door demanding I accept her view that everyone is equally excellent.