Last year, we saw the introduction of the English Baccalaureate that showed British school children that any skill or talent that they have that lies outside traditional academia is essentially worthless.
We have the ongoing drive to set up 'free schools' and give pushy, blinkered parents power over the education of their children and, worse, other people's children when they should really be kept locked outside the school gates where they can't do any damage.
Now we have the announcement that secondary schools and colleges are to be ranked by how many students they get accepted into the Russell Group universities speficially Oxbridge.
Naturally, this means, as a student at a Russell Group university I am better than everyone at my school that didn't manage to get into one of these universities but still inferior to the ones that got into Cambridge.
These measures have been announced against the backdrop of reports that private schools are dominating the elite universities despite making up only 6.5% of the school population.
When I was looking at universities back in 2008/2009 I did look at Cambridge, I thought the course was good, the town was pretty and the people seemed friendly. Yet, I didn't apply. I didn't get the grades in the end anyway but it didn't feel right.
I came from one of the best performing state schools in the country so I never exactly felt like I was 'from the wrong side of the tracks' but speaking to the other students who were going to apply was like stepping into a different world.
I probably wasn't much less wealth off than the other people there, and they did not look down on me for having a comprehensive education or northern accent, but unfortunately the stereotype is true.
I've never bought anything from Jack Wills, I don't wear sunglasses on the top of my head (there isn't much call for them in Yorkshire) and I can't afford my own car.
Students from state schools don't necessarily apply to Oxbridge because they think they can get in. Given they are going to pay £9000 a year from next September onwards they want to go somewhere where they'll be happy. Oxbridge is a great university but it's not for everyone.
With all the will and good education in the world not every good student at any school is going to get a place at an Oxbridge college. There simply isn't enough room.
So what about all the people at London South Bank or Leeds Metropolitan? By saying that a school is only good if it gets its pupils in these specific universities, the subtext is an education at any other place is inferior.
All this will do is push schools that already send a lot of students to university into pressurising their students into applying to a university they don't want to go to.
My school hot housed its 6th formers into applying for courses they didn't want and many despised them for it. I do not look back on my last two years there with too much affection.
The government claims it wants to close the gap between rich and poor and it is commendable that they are trying to stop a student's life being set in stone at eighteen.
However these measures simply suggest that their lives will be decided at twenty-one, twenty-two.
There is too much focus today on an Oxbridge education. Too many employers will take an Oxford graduate with no soft skills over a Brunel degree holder that could actually excel in the role simply because of the name on their CV.
The answer to ending inequality is not pushing poorer students into respected institutions; it's to respect the institutions that are giving them the skills and opportunities they want.