Some people think that admission to university should be based on entrance examinations, while others believe students should be selected on the basis of their school performance and other achievements. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

How universities should select their students is a question with far-reaching consequences, both for individuals and for society. Some maintain that a single competitive entrance examination is the fairest gatekeeper, while others contend that a broader assessment of school grades, extracurricular involvement and personal qualities produces better outcomes. Having considered both positions, I believe a hybrid approach is preferable, though examinations should not be abandoned altogether. The case for entrance examinations rests primarily on fairness and objectivity. Because every candidate answers identical questions under identical conditions, the results are immune to favouritism, inflated school grades and the subjective impressions of admissions officers. In countries where personal connections might otherwise influence decisions, a standardised test can act as a genuine social equaliser, allowing a talented student from a modest background to compete on equal terms with wealthier peers. Examinations also signal clearly what is expected, giving every applicant a transparent target. Critics, however, argue that a single high-stakes test is a crude instrument. It measures performance on one day rather than sustained ability, rewards memorisation over creativity, and generates enormous stress, sometimes with tragic consequences. It can also entrench inequality in a subtler form, since affluent families purchase intensive private tutoring, effectively buying higher scores. Continuous assessment of school work, by contrast, captures years of effort, while interviews and portfolios reveal qualities such as curiosity and resilience that no written paper can detect. In my judgement, both mechanisms are flawed in isolation. Examinations guard against bias but distort learning; holistic selection is richer but easier to manipulate. Universities should therefore combine a standardised test with school records and, where practical, interviews, so that the weaknesses of each method are offset by the strengths of the others. In conclusion, neither examinations nor holistic assessment alone can identify the most deserving candidates; a balanced combination of the two serves both fairness and educational quality.