The article "Change in rankings as expert group sets principles"
(June 9) states that recent rises in participation have been attributable to women. That is only half the story. A major driver has been growth in participation by those from minority ethnic groups - now 20 per cent of the whole. Yet your league tables (June 9) do not have a diversity element or an access element. Nor do they recognise the relationship between elements - institutions that operate equitable access policies have lower figures for graduate employment because of racism in the job market. But they have better figures, in general, than higher ranked institutions on undergraduate progression to work. By con-flating graduate study with graduate work in a single table, you conceal achievement by linking chalk and cheese. Can the tables please reflect that diversity and excellence in a more balanced way?