If academic ability test scores are the basis of admission into a university, then two people with the same scores should receive the same treatment. When people differ on some relevant characteristic they should be treated differently. This kind of admission policy assumes that justice consists in treating equals equally and unequals unequally. Here fairness requires different treatment. Then we need to know what is to count as a relevant characteristic. So far as education is concerned, it seems as though such things as a student's abilities, needs and interests are relevant differences. Are exceptions impossible? Lately some academics has criticized unequal distribution of educational resources and been more sensitive to the needs of the least advantaged individual. They insist that we must judge inequality from the perspective of the person who is the least well off. While universities have been trying to provide remedies for educational inequality, they give preferential treatment in admissions for the least advantaged student. However, preferential admissions have shown some problems which some characteristics of admission criteria are arbitrary and hard to be justified, such as full-time housewife, old people, sons and daughters of low class public officers. Criteria of preferential admissions were discussed in terms of utilitarian and the respect for humans. Utilitarians start from the conviction that decisions about how resources are to be allocated must be made in terms of what promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. Ability to profit is clearly a relevant characteristic. Therefore we allocate educational resources on the basis of ability to profit. We admit intellectually talented people to universities. Utilitarians are not likely to be impressed with the argument that the least advantaged people ought to be given preferential treatment in admissions because they have been the victims of injustice. The idea of respect for persons supports the preferential treatment for the least advantaged people. John Rawls has suggested a principle that is intented as answer to the question of the kinds of inequalities that can be permitted in a just society. His position is that inequality is permissible when it is to the advantage of the least advantaged individual. If an inequality is to the benefit of the person receiving the lesser share, then it is permissible. Otherwise it is not. Such a principle might be argued for by appealing to the idea of equal respect for persons. If we are to apply this view to any admission procedures, preferential treatment for the least advantaged person might be justified. However this view has also limits on admission policy. Such a policy would be based on a denial of equal respect for academically talented students. It might be a discrimination against them. Such an outcome is surely unfair. If our duty is to maximize the welfare of the least advantaged individual, there is virtually no limit the time and resource universities will have to spend. Although we have heard a frequent complaint about utilitarianism, we are also obligated to treat people with equal respect. If equality is only one value in the society, institutional remedy programs for inequality can be made as possible as many. However educational resources are not infinite. People cannot have all of the educational resources they want or need. How, then, are we to choose? The purpose of education should be considered. Universities are not welfare institutions. There should be some relevant criteria to be discussed among faculties in terms of the purpose of their own university.