Exam results are insufficient to assess how well a student is likely to fare on a degree course, an official university admissions taskforce has argued.

Professor Steven Schwartz, the chairman of the taskforce and vice chancellor of Brunel University, has called on universities, academics and students to offer their views on the issue.

Options up for debate include lowering the entry requirements for students from state schools, scholastic aptitude tests, or the "top X per cent system", where a certain percentage of the highest achieving students are guaranteed places on undergraduate courses.

A deadline of November 21 has been set for submissions to the inquiry and definitive proposals are expected in May next year.

"Defining merit and fairness in higher education admissions involves questions of value, questions which those participating in the admissions process will interpret differently," said Professor Schwartz.

"Identifying a common position may require some movement by all partners.

"The range of issues inherent in admissions and the constraints of reality may force further compromise."

He argued there was "room for improvement" in the A Level system.

"If they are the best we've got, does that mean they are the only thing we've got?" he said.

"If you look at predictions [of university performance] from A levels they are good but not perfect.

"There's certainly plenty of room for improvement."

A spokesman for Universities UK accepted the need to "raise quality, improve transparency and further professionalise admissions to university".

"We welcome the recognition in the report both of the progress made in this regard and that a range of approaches will be required by different universities in their admissions procedures to reflect their different missions," she said.

"The consultation paper also recognises that admissions rightly are, and should remain, a matter for individual institutions."