It says that "students will be admitted based on their standing in their high-school classes". Is that any more arbitrary or unfair than entrance exams?
Certainly a kid at the top of a class in an under-resourced school from a deprived area might lack the education of one from an 'elite' school, but he or she needn't be any less smart or likely to succeed in university (particularly compared to some spoiled prince or princess specially coached in entrance-exam technique).
Is it usually the case that there is an entrance exam to get into university? I thought universities generally offered conditional places based on grade 12 marks. That's the way it was when I went to university. Did it change?
Tell you what: Venezuela must be the only country where the universities are opposed to socialist views! [see the link]
The answer may lie in culture fair testing (If there is such a thing . It's alleged to exist). Couple that with good interviews and the results should prove to be fair . Oxford and Cambridge have to live with state exams but rely heavily on interviews, in the belief that the questioners can learn a lot more about the intellect, breadth of understanding, width of interests and true abilities of the candidates than mere exams will tell them.That's fine, as far as it goes, and many a bright candidate from a poor background has shown their worth there but even that is subject to criticism.State schools sometimes complain that a candidate from a private school is naturally more self-confident or that private schools take time to prepare their candidates for the rigours of devious questioning.That's unlikely to help: The panel may include someone who is a professor in the candidate's subject, but it's more likely to have a random selection of profs from other disciplines, each of whom has a favourite 'impossible' or 'imponderable' line or possible fallacy to fire as a question to the poor innocent ( expecting an instant response, too ).
AnswerPool.com 
. It's alleged to exist). Couple that with good interviews and the results should prove to be fair . Oxford and Cambridge have to live with state exams but rely heavily on interviews, in the belief that the questioners can learn a lot more about the intellect, breadth of understanding, width of interests and true abilities of the candidates than mere exams will tell them.That's fine, as far as it goes, and many a bright candidate from a poor background has shown their worth there but even that is subject to criticism.State schools sometimes complain that a candidate from a private school is naturally more self-confident or that private schools take time to prepare their candidates for the rigours of devious questioning.That's unlikely to help: The panel may include someone who is a professor in the candidate's subject, but it's more likely to have a random selection of profs from other disciplines, each of whom has a favourite 'impossible' or 'imponderable' line or possible fallacy to fire as a question to the poor innocent ( expecting an instant response, too 
