Don't feel silly, it is confusing [SMH] (1 Viewer)

[Smeed]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/dont-feel-silly-it-is-confusing/2007/01/19/1169095977185.html

Hmm another university entrance-related story by the SMH - that's two in two days now.

Anyways, what do people think of the current system of receiving university offers? What have your experiences been? Do you find it fair, or like "George Cooney, who chairs the committee responsible for universities admissions index calculations in NSW" do you think the present system needs re-evaluation and if so, how would you change it?

Personally I would prefer a system more like those in the US and Britain whereby students' entrance into university is determined by their marks in generalist subjects as well as other specific subjects that pertain to certain career paths ie. science, humanities etc. I also think that taking into account extra-curricular activities and requiring interviews/essay submissions before making university offers is a good idea as it would ensure that candidates' suitability for certain courses are taken into account before making offers, hence reducing attrition rates, however I am not too sure of the logistical challenges such a system of entry might pose.

On the other hand there are a whole lot of things about the US/UK systems that I do not like, e.g. the massive course costs but lets not go there...

 

[Etheral]

Like Cooney said, the main problem that has arisen with the system is the increase in both international and domestic full-fee paying students. Becasue of lucklustre funding Unis experience, they revert to such students.

See:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...r-lower-scorers/2007/01/14/1168709616108.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...ut-making-grade/2007/01/17/1168709828692.html

The problem posed with such systems like you stated in the US/UK (although I am not entirely familiar with them) is that such a string of prerequisites could be perplexing and even confuse the existing Australian education system and its structure even more. The attrition rates of qualifying students (under the core-UAI system) will increase IMO. The UAI has been the consistent and sole-determiner of matriculation, and to jeopardise it with issues of essays, personality tests, extra-curricular activities, and whatnot they do over in the States can cause alot of harm and increase inefficiency. There are far less students here than there, and the significance of the one number has been instilled carefully to suit such purposes (as well it is internationally recognised), so to throw everything out the window will need years of monitoring and evaluation.

My point is, what happened to the jolly good old days of the "numbers game" as my career advisor often stipulated. You miss the cut-off by any margin,despite what happens, you missed it. The education structure could be entirely revised for the new or simply restored to what it was a while ago.

Maybe it's not that simple.

 

[jpr333]

HSC/UAC system is the fairest process I've heard of. Seriously it standardises results and leaves little room for error, except in the few cases at unsw or whatever. A system like in the US or Qld would be prone to a bazillion times more corruption. If you thought people bought their way into uni now, postulate about a system with no hard rules where daddy's connection to the board or a small donation to the uni development trust was ten times more important than performance, especially when performance isnt even comparative on a state level.

Get over the media blitz, cause that's simply what it it is a beat up.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The story they really should have done should have been about the way universities artificially adjust cut-off scores (all universities), which they have been doing for a long time, and how often the places for those particular degrees are filled with people above that cut-off. They should have compared different degrees in this respect and the subsequent numbers of students therefore receiving offers below the cut-off.

Not beating it up into some sort of ball of anarchy that the university admissions system is crumbling. And not obfuscating the real issues with ignorant assertions about transfers, etc which are wholly incorrect.

They basically took a potential real issue, hacked it into tiny pieces, grabbed hold of one of those pieces and injected it with political rhetoric about university funding and so on. Then they threw in a few quotes from this website (great source). Very poor journalism.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

HSC/UAC system is the fairest process I've heard of. Seriously it standardises results and leaves little room for error, except in the few cases at unsw or whatever. A system like in the US or Qld would be prone to a bazillion times more corruption. If you thought people bought their way into uni now, postulate about a system with no hard rules where daddy's connection to the board or a small donation to the uni development trust was ten times more important than performance, especially when performance isnt even comparative on a state level.

Get over the media blitz, cause that's simply what it it is a beat up.

I agree.

Further I am against the idea of a separate "UAI" for maths, science/technology and english/humanities (or some other fairly arbitrary division) as many have suggested in the other thread.

It takes away the value of the HSC for education's sake and turns it into something to exploit for uni entrance and will leave more people either innumerate or illiterate, as if there wasn't enough already.

Finally the idea that people who start in DFEE and work hard to get the marks to transfer into CSP are rorting the system or whatever the SMH accused them of is kind of offensive. I'd think it was quite insulting to anyone who did that to be told they were cheating their way out of paying.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Well basically because DFEE people compete with CSP people for transfers (they are all in the one pool of non-recent school leavers), by SMH's logic, anyone who transferred at all is rorting the system. Which is obviously ludicrous.

 

[Etheral]

The story they really should have done should have been about the way universities artificially adjust cut-off scores (all universities), which they have been doing for a long time, and how often the places for those particular degrees are filled with people above that cut-off. They should have compared different degrees in this respect and the subsequent numbers of students therefore receiving offers below the cut-off.

Not beating it up into some sort of ball of anarchy that the university admissions system is crumbling. And not obfuscating the real issues with ignorant assertions about transfers, etc which are wholly incorrect.

They basically took a potential real issue, hacked it into tiny pieces, grabbed hold of one of those pieces and injected it with political rhetoric about university funding and so on. Then they threw in a few quotes from this website (great source). Very poor journalism.

agree, too diminished to catch the bigger fish - artifical inflation

has unsw made any direct response to this?

 

[juzmister]

In the states they take a combination of everything. I was going to apply, but decided to go to Australia instead (fastest way to get my degree, and huge costs over there). The Schools there look at the SAT as an initial kind of leveller, they then look at AP's, your GPA, community service, and interviews. It's a far fairer system, you are taken on your overall perfomance not 5 exams mixed with 50% school results. Oh, you can retake the SAT as many times as you like. When I applied to Australia, they only looked at one exam, the SAT, which is unfair as it is not the be all and end all in the states.

 

[§eraphim]

It would be an administrative nightmare, both in terms of the time and money, to conduct interviews, tests, essays, etc, on a large scale.

 

[jb_nc]

HSC/UAC system is the fairest process I've heard of. Seriously it standardises results and leaves little room for error, except in the few cases at unsw or whatever. A system like in the US or Qld would be prone to a bazillion times more corruption. If you thought people bought their way into uni now, postulate about a system with no hard rules where daddy's connection to the board or a small donation to the uni development trust was ten times more important than performance, especially when performance isnt even comparative on a state level.

Get over the media blitz, cause that's simply what it it is a beat up.

QLD has the exact same system. You are given a ranking on your performance.

 

[kami]

The problem posed with such systems like you stated in the US/UK (although I am not entirely familiar with them) is that such a string of prerequisites could be perplexing and even confuse the existing Australian education system and its structure even more. The attrition rates of qualifying students (under the core-UAI system) will increase IMO. The UAI has been the consistent and sole-determiner of matriculation, and to jeopardise it with issues of essays, personality tests, extra-curricular activities, and whatnot they do over in the States can cause alot of harm and increase inefficiency. There are far less students here than there, and the significance of the one number has been instilled carefully to suit such purposes (as well it is internationally recognised), so to throw everything out the window will need years of monitoring and evaluation.

I don't believe students would have many problems if they were preferenced due to studying certain subjects, many students behave as if this criteria already exists and their interests usually reinforce this (look at the subject choices of people who end up in drama, music, creative writing, software engineering or medicine). Students have also been coping fine with the plethora of courses that do have additional criterion, why would it be any different should the system be applied in a more wholesale manner?

We are in danger of encouraging behaviour that resulted in the UK's problem where certain A-level subjects are blacklisted by top universities as unacceptable for admission (and having 2 or more of them immediately rules you out of consideration).

That has already happened to a large extent down here, students refusing to do subjects because they don't scale well and may hamper their chances of gaining entrance into university. I would grant that is not anywhere near absolute as the restrictions you mention (and its born from a misconception to boot) but many students have been behaving as if blacklisting has existed for quite some time and many teachers have encouraged this.

 

[Xayma]

HSC/UAC system is the fairest process I've heard of. Seriously it standardises results and leaves little room for error, except in the few cases at unsw or whatever. A system like in the US or Qld would be prone to a bazillion times more corruption. If you thought people bought their way into uni now, postulate about a system with no hard rules where daddy's connection to the board or a small donation to the uni development trust was ten times more important than performance, especially when performance isnt even comparative on a state level.

Get over the media blitz, cause that's simply what it it is a beat up.

You claim that performance isn't comparative on a state level in the US. I wonder how you back up this assertion. The major elements used for college admissions are SAT, GPA and personal essays.

GPA is the only thing that isn't standardised and it is open to differences between schools, however, it isn't that unusual for GPAs to be above 4.0 also Advanced Placement tests, which are standardised (internationally with Canada) are also given higher weighting and a number of these is often the crucial factor getting into good universities. The biggest problem isn't the lack of standardisation it is not going to urban high schools which offer a large number of AP courses. It can often be more fair because the performance is based on the exam itself which means that people who are in intelligent schools operate without the same safety net that the HSC provides them but doesn't provide those who are attend schools where they are one of a few people who have the potential to do quite well on the HSC.

 

[stazi]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/dont-feel-silly-it-is-confusing/2007/01/19/1169095977185.html

Hmm another university entrance-related story by the SMH - that's two in two days now.

Anyways, what do people think of the current system of receiving university offers? What have your experiences been? Do you find it fair, or like "George Cooney, who chairs the committee responsible for universities admissions index calculations in NSW" do you think the present system needs re-evaluation and if so, how would you change it?

Personally I would prefer a system more like those in the US and Britain whereby students' entrance into university is determined by their marks in generalist subjects as well as other specific subjects that pertain to certain career paths ie. science, humanities etc. I also think that taking into account extra-curricular activities and requiring interviews/essay submissions before making university offers is a good idea as it would ensure that candidates' suitability for certain courses are taken into account before making offers, hence reducing attrition rates, however I am not too sure of the logistical challenges such a system of entry might pose.

On the other hand there are a whole lot of things about the US/UK systems that I do not like, e.g. the massive course costs but lets not go there...

I studied at UNC (USA) for a semester. They have a fantastic system. You apply to get in to either an Arts or Science degree after their year 12 exams. You then apply for a more specific degree in the second year, using your first year average, e.g. to become a business major, a journalism major, etc.

 

[Xayma]

I studied at UNC (USA) for a semester. They have a fantastic system. You apply to get in to either an Arts or Science degree after their year 12 exams. You then apply for a more specific degree in the second year, using your first year average, e.g. to become a business major, a journalism major, etc.

Oh typically you know well before your year 12 exams as well. Your last semester is often meaningless in terms of uni entry. They know which uni they're going to with months to spare, which is useful if like in the US you need to travel half way around the country instead of banking on getting your first preference to have accomm.

But to indicate it, one just needs to look at postgrad/grad school applications.

In Australia for start of March, final applications are typically required around early Janurary (scholarships like August).

In the US for start of September, applications are typically due October-December.

 

[jpr333]

QLD has the exact same system. You are given a ranking on your performance.

I was under the impression there were no state wide tests (iirc) thuse comparisons between rankings in schools becomes mightily hard.

The US system encompasses the GPA, essay and SAT but how fair is this still? 2 out of 3 aren't a fair comparative benchmark and there are no official 'cut off requirements' for any of their courses. The way they structure their degree system is a different issue entirely and not really relelevant to the discussion.

 

[dongypro]

"You reported half the story and beat up the rest!"

hay i used that quote in my FL essay too rofl

to show how the media utilizes interviewees only as tools for the mere goal of rating success and publicity ^^

 

[SweetSeasons]

every system has it's faults..

Personaly I think Uni should be free and available to all who desire to go... but that would be living in a dream world I guess.. where every one is able to get the education they desire..

education leads to succes, wether it be on an individual level, a state wide level, a nation wide level, a world wide level. If the government invested more into education people would be better informed to make better choices about life, perhaps this is why the government wants us to pay for education..

 

[jpr333]

University used to be free back in the old school labor days, but almost bankrupting the country forced economic rationalism to reign in on the parade.

 

[SweetSeasons]

I just think if it was done wisely, taking small steps, it could work..

empower people through education.. I think it's one of the most important things any country can do for it's people.

but then again i'm living in a dream world and I'm a shit talking future educator haha

 

[Xayma]

I was under the impression there were no state wide tests (iirc) thuse comparisons between rankings in schools becomes mightily hard.

The US system encompasses the GPA, essay and SAT but how fair is this still? 2 out of 3 aren't a fair comparative benchmark and there are no official 'cut off requirements' for any of their courses. The way they structure their degree system is a different issue entirely and not really relelevant to the discussion.

At elite universities given the proportion of AP courses (which are the ones mainly considered) the GPA is quite fair. It won't matter as much if you only get a B in English if you get the top grades in all the AP courses you do.

Also the essay isn't suppose to be quantitatively fair, nor do they be believe it should be.