Sydney uni to reintroduce maths prerequisites (2 Viewers)

[Trebla]

Agree, but there are also many that get in without doing many maths/science based subjects only to dropout later

The thinking in Maths or Science is very different to the thinking in Law which more closely resembles the Arts field (i.e. reading and interpreting pages and pages of text). If anything, English Ext or History Ext would be far more beneficial for Law.

I also highly doubt that those who drop out from Law are mainly those who didn't do Maths or Science, especially when those who do well in Law are often Arts/Humanities orientated. Would be interested to see your evidence.

 

[milkytea99]

The thinking in Maths or Science is very different to the thinking in Law which more closely resembles the Arts field (i.e. reading and interpreting pages and pages of text). If anything, English Ext or History Ext would be far more beneficial for Law.

I also highly doubt that those who drop out from Law are mainly those who didn't do Maths or Science, especially when those who do well in Law are often Arts/Humanities orientated. Would be interested to see your evidence.

I think they should make legal studies, ext English and maybe modern history or ext history as prerequisites for law instead of maths ext 1 lol

 

[D94]

Agree, but there are also many that get in without doing many maths/science based subjects only to dropout later

Can you actually substantiate this claim?

 

[D94]

Legal studies, Maths Ext 1, possibly a science subject (I know that this is largely unrelated to the course, but it would certainly prove that you are capable enough to do law)

How does HSC Science or Maths Ext 1 prove you are capable of legal problem solving and thought process, analysing and interpreting cases/legislation, legal written and oral communication?

The AFR article says:

"The data we have is pretty emphatic: there is a very measurable difference in
academic success, in programs with a quantitative element, between students who
have two-unit Mathematics [in year 12] and those who don't," he said.

See the correlation in why HSC Mathematics should be considered a prerequisite in this case. There is essentially no primary quantitative element in law, so HSC subjects that don't have such a correlation are ridiculous suggestions.

Medicine and law already have an exceptionally high entrance requirement at Go8 universities. We are already looking at highly capable students, and should they wish to drop out, it's reasonable to suggest that it's unlikely due to poor performance being the primary factor, but rather a lack or loss of interest (which then leads to poor performance).

 

[Silky_Smooth]

Lol didn't think I'd get attacked for stating my opinion. Anyways the law prerequisites was not the point of my original post, what I meant to say was that there should be necessary prerequisites to all university courses so that you can't get into fields such as engineering, law and medicine by doing arts, music, religion etc. I believe that this would reduce the number of dropouts in these courses.

The thinking in Maths or Science is very different to the thinking in Law which more closely resembles the Arts field (i.e. reading and interpreting pages and pages of text). If anything, English Ext or History Ext would be far more beneficial for Law.

Not sure whether law closely resembles the "Arts field", but I do agree that a subject such as English Ext should replace the science based subject I initially suggested. However, I still believe that Maths Ext 1 is necessary as everyone in all uni courses should be somewhat educated in maths.

Can you actually substantiate this claim?

I mean, I can't provide a graph or anything lol, but my claim was mostly based on people that I know that dropped out of law because they found it "too difficult" and "not interesting" because it was so different from the subjects they did in school.

How does HSC Science or Maths Ext 1 prove you are capable of legal problem solving and thought process, analysing and interpreting cases/legislation, legal written and oral communication?

The AFR article says:


See the correlation in why HSC Mathematics should be considered a prerequisite in this case. There is essentially no primary quantitative element in law, so HSC subjects that don't have such a correlation are ridiculous suggestions.

Medicine and law already have an exceptionally high entrance requirement at Go8 universities. We are already looking at highly capable students, and should they wish to drop out, it's reasonable to suggest that it's unlikely due to poor performance being the primary factor, but rather a lack or loss of interest (which then leads to poor performance).

I never said this, but I may have accidentally implied it

This is why there needs to be prerequisites such as Legal Studies for Law and Bio/Chem for Medicine (which is a requirement in other universities) to ensure that students do have the passion to undertake the course.

 

[Trebla]

However, I still believe that Maths Ext 1 is necessary as everyone in all uni courses should be somewhat educated in maths.

The intent of the Maths Ext1 course is for students who wish to pursue fields which require a higher level of mathematics.

The stuff you cover in Maths Ext1 (outside of 2 unit) or that level of thinking is never revisited in uni unless you do Science or Engineering.

Making that a pre-requisite for a course like Law when it is never touched upon, kind of defeats the intent of Maths Ext 1 in the first place.

 

[leehuan]

Lol didn't think I'd get attacked for stating my opinion. Anyways the law prerequisites was not the point of my original post, what I meant to say was that there should be necessary prerequisites to all university courses so that you can't get into fields such as engineering, law and medicine by doing arts, music, religion etc. I believe that this would reduce the number of dropouts in these courses.


Not sure whether law closely resembles the "Arts field", but I do agree that a subject such as English Ext should replace the science based subject I initially suggested. However, I still believe that Maths Ext 1 is necessary as everyone in all uni courses should be somewhat educated in maths.


I mean, I can't provide a graph or anything lol, but my claim was mostly based on people that I know that dropped out of law because they found it "too difficult" and "not interesting" because it was so different from the subjects they did in school.



I never said this, but I may have accidentally implied it

This is why there needs to be prerequisites such as Legal Studies for Law and Bio/Chem for Medicine (which is a requirement in other universities) to ensure that students do have the passion to undertake the course.

Somewhat educated in maths just means mathematics. Not MX1.

 

[Silky_Smooth]

Alright, alright, mathematics it is then...

Please understand that I was not just discussing law, but rather all uni courses. I think that maths is an essential life skill and will surface in almost any job that you can think of, therefore a reasonable level should be studied for the respective courses that people want to get into.

 

[Sien]

Tbh not all schools offer legal studies so it shouldn't be a prerequisite (and apparently legal studies is nothing like law) Not all yr 10s during subject selections know what they want to do (and i certainly was one of them), so you shouldn't place too many prerequisites on courses. I think 2u maths should be the only prereq for most courses (and maybe chem depending on the course) Also, isn't maths gonna be compulsory some time in the future or was this just a false rumour?

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

[leehuan]

Tbh not all schools offer legal studies so it shouldn't be a prerequisite (and apparently legal studies is nothing like law) Not all yr 10s during subject selections know what they want to do (and i certainly was one of them), so you shouldn't place too many prerequisites on courses. I think 2u maths should be the only prereq for most courses (and maybe chem depending on the course) Also, isn't maths gonna be compulsory some time in the future or was this just a false rumour?

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

Adding onto this.

First two weeks of law = HSC legal studies
________________________

There was speculation about maths being compulsory. Note that that means people can do general.

If my memory is right though this was when Christopher Pyne was education minister, and not industry

 

[nerdasdasd]

Adding onto this.

First two weeks of law = HSC legal studies
________________________

There was speculation about maths being compulsory. Note that that means people can do general.

If my memory is right though this was when Christopher Pyne was education minister, and not industry

Same can be said for commerce and economics.

 

[BandSixFix]

omg - The HSC is meant to measure your capabilties not what the uni wants you to pick. Sure obvious things like higher levels maths for fields such as engo are warranted but its unethical to force people so early on too pick subjects demanded by universities. And most of the time people don't pick maths or science not because they can't do it, in my case, it's because I like my subjects more than what the maths/science courses offer - does not reflect my capabilities in those fields. Isn't that why they have bridging courses?

 

[iforgotmyname]

omg - The HSC is meant to measure your capabilties not what the uni wants you to pick. Sure obvious things like higher levels maths for fields such as engo are warranted but its unethical to force people so early on too pick subjects demanded by universities. And most of the time people don't pick maths or science not because they can't do it, in my case, it's because I like my subjects more than what the maths/science courses offer - does not reflect my capabilities in those fields. Isn't that why they have bridging courses?

Because it is elitist af

 

[BandSixFix]

Because it is elitist af

?

 

[leehuan]

omg - The HSC is meant to measure your capabilties not what the uni wants you to pick. Sure obvious things like higher levels maths for fields such as engo are warranted but its unethical to force people so early on too pick subjects demanded by universities. And most of the time people don't pick maths or science not because they can't do it, in my case, it's because I like my subjects more than what the maths/science courses offer - does not reflect my capabilities in those fields. Isn't that why they have bridging courses?

Like I said somewhere earlier or elsewhere, by the time you're in Year 11 you should have a decent idea of what you want to do. It is quite easy for you to shift your interests in these two years, but the change in interest typically isn't going to be drastic.

When I was doing my subject selections, my plan was already to either become a mathematician, some kind of scientist, or a teacher. And then I ended up doing actuarial studies. Big deal though; I still had MX2 so I was able to carry through perfectly.
_______________________________

The ATAR is, in all honesty, by itself quite a poor way to measure capability as well. And for so many degrees, it's the only thing looked at.
_______________________________

Bridging courses, are sometimes abused as an alternate pathway to get in just to avoid another course.

 

[D94]

Like I said somewhere earlier or elsewhere, by the time you're in Year 11 you should have a decent idea of what you want to do. It is quite easy for you to shift your interests in these two years, but the change in interest typically isn't going to be drastic.

I don't buy that. I doubt many students have a narrow line of interests that shift slightly, but rather a wide range of interests that gets narrowed down.

There are students who do say MX2, Phys and Chem, then go on to do Med, Engineering, Actuarial Studies. Those are 3 very different fields, and the change from any of them is very drastic.

I did MX2 and History Extension in high school. What does that say about my interests?

 

[pHyRe]

omg - The HSC is meant to measure your capabilties not what the uni wants you to pick. Sure obvious things like higher levels maths for fields such as engo are warranted but its unethical to force people so early on too pick subjects demanded by universities. And most of the time people don't pick maths or science not because they can't do it, in my case, it's because I like my subjects more than what the maths/science courses offer - does not reflect my capabilities in those fields. Isn't that why they have bridging courses?

theyre not exactly setting the bar high with 2unit maths for subjects that require more maths (eco, comm, engo, science etc.)

 

[BandSixFix]

Like I said somewhere earlier or elsewhere, by the time you're in Year 11 you should have a decent idea of what you want to do. It is quite easy for you to shift your interests in these two years, but the change in interest typically isn't going to be drastic.

When I was doing my subject selections, my plan was already to either become a mathematician, some kind of scientist, or a teacher. And then I ended up doing actuarial studies. Big deal though; I still had MX2 so I was able to carry through perfectly.
_______________________________

The ATAR is, in all honesty, by itself quite a poor way to measure capability as well. And for so many degrees, it's the only thing looked at.
_______________________________

Bridging courses, are sometimes abused as an alternate pathway to get in just to avoid another course.

Most people are clueless when it comes to career paths - even when they're in the senior years. I mean, we aren't really exposed that much to what's out there so many people feel as it they may be constricted and not see every single career out there. That's good you did MX2 and usually just by doing that course boosts your ATAR if you're capable - allowing you more options. But there are people with less and/or limited options and bridging courses, obviously, bridge their knowledge that they lack. Bridging courses are not a 'path way', they merely provide stepping stones that lead to a certain course. It's not like you can get 90 ATAR and just do a bridging course to get into UNSW Comm - it doesn't work like that. It's for people who do get the cut off but lack the mathematical skills to complete the course. And if they finish the bridging course, congrats, but if they don't they would continue to fail the course or sometimes not get it. The only way it could be 'abused' is if people merely avoid a particular subject just to bridge it later on. But by refusing that, aren't we limiting a students liberty in deciding their future so early on in their life? Heck - even people in Uni find it difficult to stay in their course as they slowly realize their passion lies elsewhere, so how can we justify restricting younger students when even tertiary students are conflicted in their paths?

 

[s-f]

Most people are clueless when it comes to career paths - even when they're in the senior years. I mean, we aren't really exposed that much to what's out there so many people feel as it they may be constricted and not see every single career out there. That's good you did MX2 and usually just by doing that course boosts your ATAR if you're capable - allowing you more options. But there are people with less and/or limited options and bridging courses, obviously, bridge their knowledge that they lack. Bridging courses are not a 'path way', they merely provide stepping stones that lead to a certain course. It's not like you can get 90 ATAR and just do a bridging course to get into UNSW Comm - it doesn't work like that. It's for people who do get the cut off but lack the mathematical skills to complete the course. And if they finish the bridging course, congrats, but if they don't they would continue to fail the course or sometimes not get it. The only way it could be 'abused' is if people merely avoid a particular subject just to bridge it later on. But by refusing that, aren't we limiting a students liberty in deciding their future so early on in their life? Heck - even people in Uni find it difficult to stay in their course as they slowly realize their passion lies elsewhere, so how can we justify restricting younger students when even tertiary students are conflicted in their paths?

Ehh yes some people do make big changes to their career later on (even in late life), but if anyone is interested in pursuing a QUANTITATIVE subject, it is rather ridiculous imo that maths isn't a prereq. Yes, there should be other pathways through which people without 2u maths but with new-found passion for whatever area they want to do would be able to enter the degrees, but I don't see the problem behind making 2u a prereq for ordinary school-leaver entry spots. As long as there are other paths open (though probably going to be a longer path), I would think the need to promote STEM skills is a good reason for introducing this prereq.

 

[leehuan]

Most people are clueless when it comes to career paths - even when they're in the senior years. I mean, we aren't really exposed that much to what's out there so many people feel as it they may be constricted and not see every single career out there. That's good you did MX2 and usually just by doing that course boosts your ATAR if you're capable - allowing you more options. But there are people with less and/or limited options and bridging courses, obviously, bridge their knowledge that they lack. Bridging courses are not a 'path way', they merely provide stepping stones that lead to a certain course. It's not like you can get 90 ATAR and just do a bridging course to get into UNSW Comm - it doesn't work like that. It's for people who do get the cut off but lack the mathematical skills to complete the course. And if they finish the bridging course, congrats, but if they don't they would continue to fail the course or sometimes not get it. The only way it could be 'abused' is if people merely avoid a particular subject just to bridge it later on. But by refusing that, aren't we limiting a students liberty in deciding their future so early on in their life? Heck - even people in Uni find it difficult to stay in their course as they slowly realize their passion lies elsewhere, so how can we justify restricting younger students when even tertiary students are conflicted in their paths?

A lot of people have a tendency to do this. Not necessarily everyone, but a lot.

Because when you're in secondary you should have a range. Thus unless you're that intent on x and y, assuming prerequisites are in place why not pick a range?

I had my mind set on actuarial in Year 10. But I picked physics and chemistry. As if that's going to help.
______________________________

If a tertiary student revokes in 1st or 2nd year, that's not really an excuse; they should just sacrifice those years and take a new degree. Big deal.

If it's 3rd year on onwards, it starts to become questionable. That's more a question of WHY they chose suddenly becomes negatively appearing, and EXACTLY what CAUSED it. (e.g. concepts becoming ridiculous)