Petition - ATAR Should Not Affect University Options (1 Viewer)

[Squar3root]

Is it just me or does anyone else completely disagree with OP?

 

[Squar3root]

i agree with op. there should be a system where if you can lick your elbows you can get into med or law.

Awkward moment when I can lick my elbow with a dislocated shoulder

 

[enoilgam]

The HSC/ATAR system isnt perfect, but I dont really think it is broken to the point where it needs a complete overhaul. I think one of the key things people are failing to consider is that the HSC needs to cater for everyone, not just high achievers. Remember, for every person who wants to do Law or Medicine, there are people who want to do a trade or go to TAFE. The HSC is designed to offer a balanced secondary education for ALL students and that is something that it does extremely well.

True, university is a big step up from the HSC, but that shouldnt come as a surprise to people - university is an optional form of tertiary education designed for people going into professional careers. Whilst the HSC is flimsy in terms of content, it does impart quite a few soft skills which are useful for uni such as organisation, time management and study skills. However, in order to learn these things, YOU need to take initiative. the system isnt going to hand them to you. If you rote learn and memorise your way through HS and this causes you problems at uni - then you are as much to blame as the system. In uni and the workplace you will need to take initiative for your own skill development - so in that respect, the HSC is no different. It's easy to write off the HSC as being useless, but it does have some impact. I went to a pretty lowly uni and we had quite a few people who never put in effort or struggled with the HSC and it definitely showed. Most of the people in my classes had poor writing skills and lacked effective study methods, which caused them to struggle mightily in easy classes.

Going off on a bit of a tangent, but I think a lot of people on BoS have a very sheltered view towards education, because they either go to selective schools or because they are high achievers. I've been a tutor for the past four years specialising in struggling/below average students and to be perfectly honest, school is not easy for everyone. For some of my students, it's been a struggle to teach basic concepts like rounding, percentages and even telling analogue time. Quite a few students even struggle to read (I noticed this at HS as well). So I think people should be careful not to take their natural abilities for granted, because not everyone can so easily excel at the HSC or school.

 

[isildurrrr1]

what do you mean by gaming the system btw? As in making false claims?

Pretty much. There's even services (albiet kinda illegal) that help people with their uni applications, writing their personal statements, resume's etc. People do resume padding and add shit they didn't really do to make them look uber good. There is a racial component to uni in America, if you're Asian you're kinda fucked, if you're black you get better chances (coz LAWL MINORITY). It's not legal to racially discriminate but it still happens. You should read up the flaws of the US uni application system... things a goddamn nightmare. People spend more time on their uni apps in year 12 than anything else.

In terms of ATAR not affecting uni options... We should just go into good old nepotism, if your daddy knows someone you'd get in! No requirements at all!

 

[isildurrrr1]

literature is essentially creative philosophy and the formation of ideas and thoughts on a page, which is by no means unimportant

This this this this.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPNDMeDN07U[/youtube]

books be deep yo.

 

[Kiraken]

Pretty much. There's even services (albiet kinda illegal) that help people with their uni applications, writing their personal statements, resume's etc. People do resume padding and add shit they didn't really do to make them look uber good. There is a racial component to uni in America, if you're Asian you're kinda fucked, if you're black you get better chances (coz LAWL MINORITY). It's not legal to racially discriminate but it still happens. You should read up the flaws of the US uni application system... things a goddamn nightmare. People spend more time on their uni apps in year 12 than anything else.

In terms of ATAR not affecting uni options... We should just go into good old nepotism, if your daddy knows someone you'd get in! No requirements at all!

what about something that is ATAR+inteview?

 

[nerdasdasd]

what about something that is ATAR+inteview?

Would it be sustainable ?

You would have to interview all 50, 000 people...

Good idea! But it would take a lot of time.

 

[Fiction]

1. As you've stated, it is my opinion and we can agree to disagree how much we value literature. I didn't say LANGUAGE was BS. I think language is actually vbbbbessential for basic human function. I was moreso referring to analysing literature as kinda BS lol. Also we aren't talking about university maths, science or English. We're keeping it in the frame of HSC and imo, the skills learnt in maths and science during the hsc are more important than knowing how to analyse literature. Knowing how to solve problems creatively (math) and understanding the basic systems of how things happen (science) to me is more vital.

I don't see how me doing art is relevant to the topic of contention...?

Maths does require high levels of logical thinking. Think about it, you're given a problem and you need to deconstruct it logically to give you a result. I think maths and English tests differing sides of logical and critical thinking. You can't devalue maths to just memorisation of formulas, etc. this may be my personal bias from doing it, but it does challenge you creatively. As for science, I can't fully argue for it because I don't do HSC science anymore but I found it challenged how you understood our current systems of knowledge and function.

2. You're looking at different areas of English. If we speak that much a day, shouldn't the entire HSC be based on oral examinations? Because who writes 6 hours a day? Maths isn't purely about doing questions, but rather how we approach a problem.

I never advocated for mandating science and maths together, just at least general maths because it teaches the basic skills necessary.

3. Well, if you've seen the SAT questions, you they're all spontaneous and there's not really any room for memorisation because you don't know what topic you will be asked. No model is perfect, of course. But I think that style of exams for English is better than our current one.

1. no offense but I think year 11 and 12 science could hardly qualify in "making a substantial societal contribtion" Therefore I assumed your argument is about uni level science. How do you solve a maths questions creatively when you only have a limited knowledge of mathematics at senior school level...?lol IMO constructing an argument would prolly fire up the creative brain cells more so than solving a maths question

Yes, I agree that understanding basic science is vital, but your prev argument was that eng = complete bs, and you justified science as something that should be mandated by saying that somehow by learning year 11 and 12 science, students can make a substantial societal contribution. I disagree with your previous point in that year 11 and year 12 science touches only on the very basic of concepts. I doubt any student will be able to score themselves with a nobel prize without any scientific degrees or knowledge apart from senior high school education.

Thus, I cannot understand what you mean by that you're keeping within the HSC b/c of the reasons listed above. If anything, you've just made a contradiction.

I brought up art as a means to justify the value of "entertainment" aka how you view english. I can expand on it if you'll like, but you should already know the topics within "what is art and it's function" as a Visual arts student.

2. No I'm not. English is about communication and communication does not purely come in the form of oral speech... Why should the entire HSC be based on oral examinations? The current HSC english model examines students on constructing an argument or expressing a perspective - which is what anyone does when they're speaking... They're communciating their values, perspectives towards someone else, and this more than likely leads to a need for the individual to pick out several contextual "evidence" which is pretty much the evidence in an essay. I think you're being quite selective.

Yes maths is about logical thinking - but what isn't? English develops an individual to develop an argument and express themselves. It is applicable to all fields. Maths on the other hand, isn't. I agree that a basic knowledge is needed in our everyday lives but I don't see how you can justify mandating maths over mandating english.

3. I've never seen or have been exposed to any SAT questions, at least not to my knowledge. Example? I don't really understand how an exam can be spontaneous...

 

[Fiction]

what about something that is ATAR+inteview?

lolol that was brought up in one of the debating sessions c: Basically interviews and extracurriculars = should they be compulsory it can potentially alienate the different income ranges (this is more about EC, since poorer familes won't be able to afford EC), and also it wasn't fair for introverts + what would the model be => expenses etc. Oh and that unis apparently already provide communication skills to students (as in teaches) therefore we shouldn't judge upon a 17/18/19 y.o on ability to talk (can't think of a better word lol) since it's the academic thingies that matter more.

But then we had that EC and interviews helped develop individual's sense of self, makes them more aware of what they're going to do, ups standard etc

It's an interesting idea albeit sounding slightly tedious lol

 

[rumbleroar]

Would it be sustainable ?

You would have to interview all 50, 000 people...

Good idea! But it would take a lot of time.

university admissions for undergrad courses don't amount to 50k do they? (on a yearly basis at least)
i think its only viable for some courses - like med and law

 

[brent012]

That isn't what people do .... People chose the hard subjects for scaling.

Parents also pressure kids into doing certain subjects as they think "x" or "y" is useless.

But the people who do subjects for scaling alone or because its what their parents want them to do are the same people who do courses because they hear it pays well or their parents want them to do it, so that doesn't count.

 

[anomalousdecay]

university admissions for undergrad courses don't amount to 50k do they? (on a yearly basis at least)
i think its only viable for some courses - like med and law

Well every year UNSW alone gets about 8-10k people a year.

 

[flashyGoldFish]

1. a) Argueably language is a scientific device.
b) that's kinda your opinion lol. Using the right language, and knowing how to use the right language is used occupations along with various other knowledge/fields. E.g, councellors, other medical fields that treat mental disorders. You can't just claim that language is complete bs, that science and maths oh so betters our society etc, because may I ask you, how does year 11 and 12 maths and science better our society? University english is apparently nothing like HSC english, your argument is based upon university maths and science, therefore not plausible. To argue so would also be to completely disregard professions such as philosophers who ponder and write essays, not experiments, essays.

You do art, I'm surprised you haven't done an essay on "what is art and it's function" yet. If you have, then those literary texts which may seem like mere entertainment for you is actually vital in our society. And I don't just mean by capalitistic/profitable means.

I could also argue that science and maths is simply regurgitating facts, it does not further critical or logical thinking in the way english does.


2. I never argued that eng should be mandatory. I'm simply saying that if any one subject were to be mandated, eng would prolly be the best option. Based off your argument, maths should be mandatory because it was taught since kindy. The average person speaks like, at least 6 hours a day? The average person works on how many math questions a day?

Mandating maths and science, means that 6 units of the compulsory 10 are already taken up. This gives kids very little opportunity to chose other courses for lack of time, so idk. It would certainly help those who were already thinkingo f taking up maths and science subjects, but what about the more humanities or arts centered? You can take up to 14 units without too much morning classes etc, (2 morning classes and 2 hours a week after school, at least for me) so that leaves 8 units. The average person only would take 10-12 units for the hsc though. Idk. 6 compulsory units seems like a lot, when senior school is meant to "specialise" / "free choice" etc :/


First of all, how would your new model prevent students from memorising and regurigitating essay?

There's a flaw to every system, you can't expect a course to run perfectly. Like someone has mentioned, the HSC is like a game, there are various ways around it. I could argue that you can't actually memorise an essay for Eng, you need to adapt a memorised essay to the question. Failure to do so = not answering the question. Ability to adapt and mould arguments with set contextual evidence is part of what builds the critical and logical thinking.

Completely disagree with this post.

How is english 'scientific'? Without an explanation thats a ridiculous statement. Its like me saying science is english.

You're hung up on HSC Science being useless and just regurgitation of facts (like HSC isnt regurgitating essays?) when its also a lot of applying the facts that you know. Its a crazy stereotype to say science is just regurgitating facts. How does year 11 and 12 english better our society? If anything year 11 and 12 science is more helpful because it gives you skills to help you pursue a science degree, which has a lot more practical application to 'bettering' of society, to use your own term.

We live in an age where everything around is science or engineering and this will only get bigger and more influential. Its been spoken about a boom in biotechnology job sector in the next 20 or so years. Surely its in our interests to be equipping students with attributes that will help them in this way.

Id say people do a lot more regurgitating in essays where as theres not as much regurgitation in science. Youve got to study concepts to understand them so you can apply them.

The idea I originally proposed was not 2 mandatory english 2 mandatory maths and 2 mandatory science, just 2 english and 2 science units. HSC should be equipping people with a range of skills and not close off any options to students. HSC graduates should be more well rounded and be able to do english and a science/math. Year 10 level science is still not really science and very basic. That said even at the end of year 12 theres not enough understanding of science taught

 

[Kiraken]

Would it be sustainable ?

You would have to interview all 50, 000 people...

Good idea! But it would take a lot of time.

you can restrict it to courses where it would be a tad more relevant though, you don't have to do it for everyone

 

[Crobat]

you can restrict it to courses where it would be a tad more relevant though, you don't have to do it for everyone

That kind of just leaves it with like Med & Law though that would effectively utilize the interview. I can't see why a generalist degree such as Business/Commerce, for example, would/should have interviews - I mean it's no secret that the market is tough but the degree itself does not require students of any particular ingenuity to complete or to complete well.

I think that the universities themselves should instate their own entrance exams to their degrees. That way rather than relying entirely on the ATAR the universities themselves have a means of testing students.

 

[Kiraken]

That kind of just leaves it with like Med & Law though that would effectively utilize the interview. I can't see why a generalist degree such as Business/Commerce, for example, would/should have interviews - I mean it's no secret that the market is tough but the degree itself does not require students of any particular ingenuity to complete or to complete well.

I think that the universities themselves should instate their own entrance exams to their degrees. That way rather than relying entirely on the ATAR the universities themselves have a means of testing students.

why doesn't law have it btw?

 

[bangladesh]

why doesn't law have it btw?

because it's not THAT competitive at unis other than usyd and unsw. I think it's a very good thing to have interviews for all courses, but you have to look at it from the university's point of view.. Interviews cost money and unis would rather avoid them as much as they can

 

[D94]

The idea I originally proposed was not 2 mandatory english 2 mandatory maths and 2 mandatory science, just 2 english and 2 science units. HSC should be equipping people with a range of skills and not close off any options to students. HSC graduates should be more well rounded and be able to do english and a science/math. Year 10 level science is still not really science and very basic. That said even at the end of year 12 theres not enough understanding of science taught

Your suggestion is not consistent with that statement. The HSC does provide many options. It is the choice of the student to restrict themselves to certain subject areas, as is their choice to choose subjects from a vast range of areas. Self decision making and forward thinking are far more important skills than being exposed to HSC Science.

Students can access an extremely wide ranging amount of content beyond the classroom, and it should be their choice, their initiative to delve into those topics that they are not familiar with. Why not have mandatory 2U history as well? In your proposition, and based on the current syllabi, students can still be oblivious to the World Wars or significant historical figures. How would they still be considered "well rounded"? If you argue that they can read this in their own time, then I bring you back to my point about students taking initiative, and relate that to HSC Science. That can very well be learned in their own time, so why the need to make it mandatory?

I did a few humanities for the HSC, and I can tell you that they were extremely important for university engineering. There are so many students who do not know how to write reports and essays, and fail basic research. Had I not done those humanities subjects, I would only have HSC English, which would still be useful, but that lacks the research aspect. In fact, the university recognises that many engineering students do not know how to research that there was a whole lecture on how to find peer reviewed journals and use them in research. Many students didn't even know what they were, let alone how to find them. HSC Science does not provide these basic research skills, so what good is being able to use Faraday's Law when something more fundamental as researching skills isn't prevalent in those subjects?

Anyway, all this does not address the issues of the OP.

 

[Crobat]

why doesn't law have it btw?

Who knows lol

Probably because you can get 10k or 20k out of them before they decide to drop it

 

[Squar3root]

D94 is always right.