Unis turn away from single entry mark (1 Viewer)

[AsyLum]

Reminder: This discussion is not asking for you to produce a series of verbose artsy essays which goes further from the actual topic with every post you make.



Read as: waah waah blah blah I've missed the point again.

Jobs, UAI, uni courses etc are all aesthetics in the context of what I have said so far. You've drawn some conclusions and parallels which clearly show that you're not thinking. The main point, which has clearly gone way over your head, is that for any particular thing there may well be a large number of suitable candidates who are suitable. But of course only those who have the highest level of ablity which is relevant to that thing are selected. That's the reason why you don't just have any random being selected for any particular thing. I hope my usage of the word 'thing' is abstract enough for you. I wouldn't want you drawing anymore silly parallels between unrelated things that I mention.

Read as: I seriously have nfi what I'm talking about.

Point in contention:

The main point, which has clearly gone way over your head, is that for any particular thing there may well be a large number of suitable candidates who are suitable. But of course only those who have the highest level of ablity which is relevant to that thing are selected.

I think thats pretty clear.

Point you're trying to make:

That's the reason why you don't just have any random being selected for any particular thing.

Again pretty clear.

Now lets take a look at your comments.

I mean University of Syd once said a UAI of 85 would be sufficient for their law course... so why is it 99.5? What sort of people are in that course? Will they make good lawyers? etc. Academia is all very well and good, but you do have people who literally don't have a life outside studying, and I think this is a bad thing to send to young people about what skills they need.

In response:

Season your question about why the USYD law UAI is so high even though they said someone with a UAI of 85 could do the course is equivalent to asking why accounting firms don't just recruit tafe students. After all, tafe students should be much more proficient at wasting time on inane things so surely they should be more attractive to such firms.

The person I was replying to clearly knew that the reason why the USYD law cutoff is so high is because many people with high UAIs enrol in it. My response to them was a reference to the fact that while any Joe could well perform any particular task, it's the best that are preferred - hence the reason why people with high UAIs get in ahead of those with much lower ones.

So basically, the person, Season, asking about the credibility of people within a course, who basically spend their lives studying, or lack certain social aspects.

Your response was rather abstract (read as: fucking clueless) and detailed how accounting firms 'don't just recruit tafe students' without really going into any detail as to why this is so.

Your second response 'detailed' this by stating: that your response was in fact a clear and completely explicit explanation of how the best of the best are all that companies want. And that through the UAI system, they can weed out those that aren't eligible for this lofty criteria.

And finally: you've rounded it up by stating that only those "who have the highest level of ablity which is relevant to that thing are selected."

Now, we're talking in a thread, which is about university entry. Season questioned what type of people are in a bachelor of law at USYD. You responded, that only the BEST people obviously get into jobs. (hmm missing something important here...3-5 years of uni marks and/or experiences, no that can't be it, oh sorry I'm a retard, UAIs ARE what gets us jobs...wait no...that can't be right either, they're merely aesthetics to umm, BEING RIGHT FOR THE ROLE!)

You are a fucking moron. No wait, you are a fucking ARROGANT moron, who obviously has no fucking understanding of a) the quota system, b) has a self-righteous agenda to announce everyone else's inferiority to them, c) are a fucking moron.

You haven't addressed any issues, you haven't stated anything even remotely realistic or logical, you have attempted to dismiss my arguments and FACTS on some whimsical basis that I don't understand the point.

So please, tell me again, why is being able to get into a certain degree THE determining factor in getting a job or being 'the cream of the crop' ?

Lets revisit some things,

the current system relies on an entry mark, this entry mark is based on your results during your final year 12 year.

The universities have a quota system which I have explained previously, and use this mark to gauge a) popularity, b) resource allocations for that course.

edit: I think this is where you whole argument seems to fall apart.

You keep stating that only the best people are chosen for the position, yet very rarely, if at all, are people chosen based on their UAI.

You are arguing a truism, of course there are certain people who'll be picked over other people, thats the way of competition. The point is that it is NOT the uni that decides who to accept (in the current form) nor is it the employers nor is it the government nor is it anyone BUT the students who control the UAI entry for the year/course/institution.

So, again, tell me WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU STATING THAT ENTRY VIA A HSC MARK DETERMINES YOUR VIABILITY FOR A JOB ?

Or as you've put it:

HEY LOL I CAN DISMISS YOU LOL THING! ABSTRACT FUCK I KNOW SHIT ALL. :wave:

Have a nice day.

 

[Anonymou5]

oh sorry I'm a retard

That's ok, I gathered that from how you needed to construct a verbose essay to respond to a few simple concepts which you still do not understand.

WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU STATING THAT ENTRY VIA A HSC MARK DETERMINES YOUR VIABILITY FOR A JOB ?

I never stated that, learn to read.

 

[AsyLum]

You never stated ANYTHING.

You stated that competition occurs. Thats about all. You keep saying you've explained or stated something. You haven't. Now go fuck off and play some watersports.

 

[poloktim]

HAY GUYS WHO LIKES WATERSPORTS?

On an unrelated note:

UAI is a measure of popularity with regards to quota. The higher a UAI cutoff, the more popular a course is, the smaller the quota, or both.

 

[Anonymou5]

You never stated ANYTHING.

So all your rambling (not to mention utter bullshit) about how I stated this and that was just the same sort of rubbish that you spit out all of the time?

 

[AsyLum]

So all your rambling (not to mention utter bullshit) about how I stated this and that was just the same sort of rubbish that you spit out all of the time?

Well no, I'll give you this, you've stated one thing, that there are certain people who will get into jobs based on their credentials/qualities.

Nowhere have you mentioned how this relates to a) the University Entry system, b) Uni, c) High school d) course.

So now you're just being silly.

 

[Anonymou5]

Well no, I'll give you this, you've stated one thing, that there are certain people who will get into jobs based on their credentials/qualities.

That's a very skewed version of what I originally said.

 

[_dhj_]

Calm down peeps...

The system is quite complicated to analyse, but if we assume that the only purpose of providing tertiary education is to cultivate a suitable pool of labour, we need to consider the following.

1) Most year 12 students don't know what they want to do with their life, and are looking to defer commitment until they receive a mark which indicates their general aptitude and implicitly, what professions they are capable of entering. Even when they dont' know what they want however, they are able to work hard towards the general goal of building a 'successful' career and the first step towards doing so - achieving a high uai - is theoretically possible and achievable no matter which subjects they take or which high school they are in. The 'scaling' and 'aligning' processes are there to make things fair so that students aren't disadvantaged by choosing to study harder subjects or competing among highly capable internal peers.

2) Entry into a uni course or failure thereof is not a guaranteed pathway to success or failure. There are still avenues - transfer, graduate programs, UWS, TAFE, diploma etc. providing those that failed at the initial hurdle with a chance to redeem. Ceteris paribus, they are at a disadvantage in those alternatives, but they can still make up for the disadvantage by achieving high uni scores, actively taking part in extra-curricular activities, or gain extra work experience. Employers aren't stupid - they won't reject an outstanding candidate just because she went to the wrong uni.

3) Students that are interested, or naturally capable in what they're studying will tend to achieve higher marks than students that aren't interested or capable. So the university itself can 'weed out' dud candidates and those who are generally capable, but are doing the wrong thing. Of course they can also transfer.

4) Signaling is inefficient, training is efficient. What this means is that a system ought to minimise resources spent in merely determining how capable students are, and maximise resources spent on actually training and improving the skills of students. The Australian system in this respect is more efficient than the American system where generalist degrees are merely for signaling.

There are reasons beyond the sheer simplicity and transparency as to why the one mark UAI system we currently have is an excellent system.

 

[Season]

Anonymou5

Look Anonymou5 my point wasn't that we get more "stupid" people into these courses, but rather I don't think our UAI is an adequate selection criteria. Especially when it reaches the point when the cut-off has nothing to do with the difficulty of the course rather the popularity.

If you happen to be brilliant... why couldn't you easily ace these other criteria? A co-curricular here and there to prove that you are interested in the course not just doing somethiing to 'not waste your UAI'. I dont' believe studying all day, all night, having no social life, no sport, no drama, no school involvement YET doing well in assessment... is a sign of success.

Having a successful career isn't dependant on intelligence, sure its a factor, but unless you can talk to people then in most fields you won't go anywhere. I have a friend who recently finished his degree at ANU, he got a distinction average and he had interviews everywhere. Yet he didn't get a job at any firm (he ended up with one in the public sector), but the fact is he didn't have the skills to entice employers.

 

[Anonymou5]

A cut off as you would know and as 'mr.blab before thinking' has pointed out many times is based on supply (how many places are available) and demand (how many people want to get in). This has nothing to do with a course's difficulty.

How does being able to kick pig skin in between two wooden sticks indicate that you're interested in and would be able to get through say a law or medicine course? Note that there is no reference to employment here. To get through a course, the essential criterion is to have the aptitude and the drive to the do the study.

The rest of what you said is bordering on the irrelevant again. Get the following through your thick, sure to not get into a decent course directly (mark my words), head: We are talking about gaining entrance to a uni course, and that alone. The question then is whether or not the student has what it takes to complete the course satisfactorily. (NB: This is the only question because not everyone seeks employment in a related field, some go into research, higher degrees etc.) To get through a uni course all you need is the drive to study. Whether or not they gain employment in some narrowly restricted field is irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to talk about employment prospects then start a new thread.

 

[Conspirocy]

The introduction of these types of alternative systems will result in a shift away from the UAI and eventually it will no longer be used - it will be replaced by some sort of testing, along with interviews, and most of all higher fees for university students to add another barrier - its just a step towards a US or UK style of schooling

can I just say that if they had a system not based on the UAI it would totally favour private school students in my opinion - i went to a private school so im not being some selective school complainer.

All these extra criteria that they add are pretty silly. Someone said interviews etc Private school kids will ace them because they have more opportunities to do practice, have extra curicular activities etc Plus there would be a lack of transperancy, if there were interivews a lot of people would get in based on who they know

As for this apptitude test, haven't they learnt anything from the selective schools entry test - people get tutoring for that, why wouldn't they get tutoring for a uni entrance exam as well - again this favours those who can afford the tutoring, and private school kids will benefit again.

So in conclusion, if they get rid of the uai then great. I'm totally for this because it means me and my private school buddies can shut out a lot of smarter people...and we can totally move back to a class system where you arent rewarded for your hard work. I mean seriously, how many second chances do people need - if u dont like ur uai, sit ur hsc again - go to another uni transfer into your course - there are too many ways to get in already why are we adding more

 

[Tulipa]

As for this apptitude test, haven't they learnt anything from the selective schools entry test - people get tutoring for that, why wouldn't they get tutoring for a uni entrance exam as well - again this favours those who can afford the tutoring, and private school kids will benefit again.

One thing, an aptitude test is "A test intended to measure the test-taker's innate ability to learn, given before receiving instruction."

It's something you can't study for. As such it won't benefit private school students.

Someone said interviews etc Private school kids will ace them because they have more opportunities to do practice, have extra curicular activities etc Plus there would be a lack of transperancy, if there were interivews a lot of people would get in based on who they know

I doubt the system would break down to that level and I don't think that ethically an interviewer would be able to interview someone they knew personally without some subjectivity being called into question and that problem being rectified.

I'm totally for this because it means me and my private school buddies can shut out a lot of smarter people...

Since the aptitude test measures intelligence, then I doubt that would happen.

 

[AsyLum]

We are talking about gaining entrance to a uni course, and that alone.

Yes, and in talking about that, we're talking about the variety of things associated with such an act. The WHOLE discussion has been on the effectiveness of the current system to be a fair indicator of a person's ability.

I've been arguing that the current system is too abstract, and lets in too many people who have little to no passion, get into the wrong degree because they don't want to 'waste' their UAI, or that those who are probably better suited to it but don't work well under the high school system, are left high and dry.

You seem intent to bring down ANYTHING to do with this, stating how its all irrelevant and aesthetics to the whole process, that the UAI is in itself the message. Again this is what you don't understand, the UAI is not some sort of determining of your status in society or at uni, and if you feel as strongly as you do about it, then you're a fucking shitcunt. Only fucktards give a fuck what UAI you get after high school.

Whether or not they gain employment in some narrowly restricted field is irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to talk about employment prospects then start a new thread.

*sigh*

You just don't get it.

You say we can't talk about end results, and yet make the claim that the UAI weeds out those that aren't 'suited' for the course. You say the UAI of courses are so high, because people want only the best, and so the higher the UAI, the better the course.

But:

THE UAI IS NOT A MEASURE OF ANYTHING BUT YOUR MARKS FOR THE YEAR. IT DOES NOT MEASURE YOUR APTITUDE OR ABILITY TO STUDY IN A UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT. IT DOES NOT MEASURE YOUR ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH, SOLVE PROBLEMS OR EVEN JUDGE THE QUALITY OF A PERSON. THATS THE VERY REASON WHY IT IS BEING CONSIDERED TO OVERHAUL IT.

You place such an emphasis on the entry mark, and then use it to justify these lofty claims which have little to no basis.

How does being able to kick pig skin in between two wooden sticks indicate that you're interested in and would be able to get through say a law or medicine course? Note that there is no reference to employment here. To get through a course, the essential criterion is to have the aptitude and the drive to the do the study.

It doesn't. But how do you explain someone who's taken up music, drama, and maths has any relevance to law in that respects? It doesn't measure that, thats the point.

If getting through uni was all about 'studying' then you're missing half the fucking point of it. I can get through uni, and have been without turning up to lectures, doing readings or generally giving a fuck, and scored myself HDs and Ds. I had an interest in the course, and had a very extensive general knowledge about it. I didn't study, nor did I even revise.

The whole transmission model of learning is such a fucking outdated piece of work, thats its laughable. Not everyone can study, not everyone can write essays all day or night, and not everyone needs to have that drive and yet still succeed. You fail to understand this point. Very little of what we study translates to the external world, so how and why do our results in Maths, count towards entry into a course where Maths is non-existant? Why should those people who had no want to learn or study about history, english or maths in an academic way, have their results for a Graphic Design course, or Musical Theory course count towards their entry requirements?

 

[Anonymou5]

You say the UAI of courses are so high, because people want only the best, and so the higher the UAI, the better the course.
p

Buy yourself a pair of glasses and then I'll get back to you. I shall repeat myself again. I have never made comparisons across courses. Nor have I asserted that the UAI is some measure of a person's worth (in a broader sense than as a student). What I have alluded to however is that the UAI is an objective measure which by and large rewards those whose desire to get into their dream course is strong enough to push them to study. If you don't understand this intimate relationship between studying and the desire to get into a course then clearly you don't know the meaning of hardwork and are one of those sad cunts who think that everything should be handed to your lazy ass on a silver platter.

Of course there will always be a few who don't need to study because of their aptitude and there'll also be some who falter because they're simply not suited to hard work. However for the vast majority, it is about whether or not their desire to get into a course is strong enough to force them to study. You can't be bothered to study then you're passion for you future course is quite weak, full stop. This is about as objective as it gets. You simply don't get that with a interview where it is very easy to feign interest. Although I can see why lazy people would prefer a 5 minute bullshit fest (ie. interview) over a year or so of hardwork.

As for your other points, you're either ignoring the blatantly obvious or you're just being plain stupid. For example, "UAI is just a measure of your marks and nothing else"...and how does one get those marks? Also, you're isolated examples don't prove anything -

can get through uni, and have been without turning up to lectures, doing readings or generally giving a fuck, and scored myself HDs and Ds.

...I'm sure med students could do the same and that society would be comfortable with that.

Finally, learn to read and interpret properly. Just because you suffer from some inferiority complex, don't twist my words just so that you can respond to some issue that's been bothering you. For instance, my main point throughout has been centred on non standard (in the sense of current practice) selection methods being inappropriate for many courses due to their subjectiveness. Yet somehow you interpret that as some reference to the UAI being indicative of one's status in society. Fuck, see a doctor.

Now unless you start coming up with something new, which doesn't involve any blatant and intentional misrepresentation of my views, I won't waste any further time on a lazy drop kick like you.

 

[AsyLum]

Buy yourself a pair of glasses and then I'll get back to you. I shall repeat myself again. I have never made comparisons across courses. Nor have I asserted that the UAI is some measure of a person's worth (in a broader sense than as a student). What I have alluded to however is that the UAI is an objective measure which by and large rewards those whose desire to get into their dream course is strong enough to push them to study. If you don't understand this intimate relationship between studying and the desire to get into a course then clearly you don't know the meaning of hardwork and are one of those sad cunts who think that everything should be handed to your lazy ass on a silver platter.

I've mentioned a few times already, and you seem to want to ignore the truth, but those comparisons AREN'T about across the board, you have STATED quite explicitly:

My response to them was a reference to the fact that while any Joe could well perform any particular task, it's the best that are preferred - hence the reason why people with high UAIs get in ahead of those with much lower ones.

That is a value laden judgement based on your UAI score. No I am not incapable of reading, you're incapable of admitting your fault. You have stated that a high UAI is effectively a measure of someone's END result, by attaching the previous statement of:

Season your question about why the USYD law UAI is so high even though they said someone with a UAI of 85 could do the course is equivalent to asking why accounting firms don't just recruit tafe students.

You are ignorant of your own double standards, and it is not some sort of inferiority complex, I just hate fucktards who can't back up their claims and have inherently problematic arguments, which you seem to have.

Of course there will always be a few who don't need to study because of their aptitude and there'll also be some who falter because they're simply not suited to hard work. However for the vast majority, it is about whether or not their desire to get into a course is strong enough to force them to study. You can't be bothered to study then you're passion for you future course is quite weak, full stop.

Thats not quite true, you fail to address my last paragraph, how can you be passionate about a subject which has absolutely no bearing on your future plans? Its not about your passion, if you're just no good at it, then its pretty fucking useless, and you'll scrape by rather than excel. Furthermore, your 'passion' argument seems to deny anyone who doesn't initially get into uni through the normal entry system. (ie, UAI). Are they not as passionate if they go through alternate means? Because it seems you have this massive complex about people who go through TAFE.

This is about as objective as it gets. You simply don't get that with a interview where it is very easy to feign interest. Although I can see why lazy people would prefer a 5 minute bullshit fest (ie. interview) over a year or so of hardwork.

Great work on generalising dipshit. You're here stating your fucking personal passion is the one thing that's going to get you through, and somehow by showing you can give the square root of 312 you're unequivocably showing your very enthusiasm at doing communication theory, doesn't quite sit with me. You seem to think that the interview is the ONLY thing taken into account. It is not.

Most things will take your marks first and foremost, BUT use an interview TO SEE WHO HAS MORE PASSION FOR THE COURSE AND MAY HAVE MISSED OUT DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THEIR MEASURE. Oops, there goes YOUR FUCKING ARGUMENT.

As for your other points, you're either ignoring the blatantly obvious or you're just being plain stupid. For example, "UAI is just a measure of your marks and nothing else"...and how does one get those marks?

Your marks and the process involved with getting those marks are part of your high school experience, and your OWN PERSONAL experience. The UAI IS just a mark. As you said "this is as objective as it gets", and now you want to bring some sort of personal arrangement to it? No, you can't do that. The process is either as objective as it can get, (thus agreeing with me), or its a value laden process whereby a qualitative assessment can be made on the student numbers. (1984 ftw).

Also, you're isolated examples don't prove anything - ...I'm sure med students could do the same and that society would be comfortable with that.

Yeah they're totally isolated, cos you know, EVERYONE at uni gets HDs and studies their ass off cos they're all in the RIGHT degree.

Idiot. They're not isolated problems, thats the very reason why the fucking system is being looked at to be overhauled.

Finally, learn to read and interpret properly. Just because you suffer from some inferiority complex, don't twist my words just so that you can respond to some issue that's been bothering you. For instance, my main point throughout has been centred on non standard (in the sense of current practice) selection methods being inappropriate for many courses due to their subjectiveness. Yet somehow you interpret that as some reference to the UAI being indicative of one's status in society. Fuck, see a doctor.

Again, you're the one who appears to suffer from communication problems. I've posted several times, underlying what your responses were, I'm not going to argue, cos its been about 4-5 times already.

Now unless you start coming up with something new, which doesn't involve any blatant and intentional misrepresentation of my views, I won't waste any further time on a lazy drop kick like you.

I wouldn't want to keep you from studying, off you go you little twat. May the force be with you, you fucknut.

 

[_dhj_]

No offence AsyLum but your posts have been 90% personal attacks, 9% unsupported statements and 1% illogical arguments.

 

[Anonymou5]

Sadly, almost all of Assylum's arguments hinge on what ifs and few isolated cases.

TO SEE WHO HAS MORE PASSION FOR THE COURSE AND MAY HAVE MISSED OUT DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THEIR MEASURE.

z0mg my parents didn't give me the genes to become a multimillion dollar athelete. I have zee passion, its just that I don't have the body of an athelete. So bring on those endorsements kthx bye.

Yeah they're totally isolated, cos you know, EVERYONE at uni gets HDs and studies their ass off cos they're all in the RIGHT degree.

My comment about med students was in reference to your comment about how you can supposedly obtain HDs without attending classes or studying. The point was that while being a slack cunt suffices for your course (Bachelor of wasting taxpayers' money), you can't apply your situation to others (such as a med course) as a means of justifying your fallacious claim that face to face teaching is 'out dated' so that it's unfair to assess uni applicants on their UAI. So again, learn to read and interpret moron.

Oh and here's a tip. Proper or even decent arguments are based on substance. Verbose circular ramblings which don't strike at the heart of the issue, such as what you've produced repeatedly, don't cut it. Perhaps you missed out on that knowledge because you, being the evidently lazy stupid person that you are, didn't bother turning up to classes. Actually, that does explain a lot. You (self admittedly) don't even turn up to classes and yet you make the ludicrous claim that face to face teaching is 'outdated'? I mean it's like, how would you even know? You're stupid.

Edit: BTW most of your arguments are fundamentally flawed in that you fail to recognise the dynamic nature of the discussion. This is demonstrated by your selective quoting in which you bring back something from a completely different context and clumsily try to shuve it back into your current argument so as to make it look like I've said or implied something that I haven't.

 

[Monstar]

No offense, but all of you need to stfuppercut. Everyone knows the UAI is shit and this system was a long time coming. kk end of discussionz!!1!

 

[Goodbye]

And no offence. Looking from an outsider's view that Anonymou5 has the better argument.

 

[Season]

A cut off as you would know and as 'mr.blab before thinking' has pointed out many times is based on supply (how many places are available) and demand (how many people want to get in). This has nothing to do with a course's difficulty.

How does being able to kick pig skin in between two wooden sticks indicate that you're interested in and would be able to get through say a law or medicine course? Note that there is no reference to employment here. To get through a course, the essential criterion is to have the aptitude and the drive to the do the study.

The rest of what you said is bordering on the irrelevant again. Get the following through your thick, sure to not get into a decent course directly (mark my words), head: We are talking about gaining entrance to a uni course, and that alone. The question then is whether or not the student has what it takes to complete the course satisfactorily. (NB: This is the only question because not everyone seeks employment in a related field, some go into research, higher degrees etc.) To get through a uni course all you need is the drive to study. Whether or not they gain employment in some narrowly restricted field is irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to talk about employment prospects then start a new thread.

"kicking a pig skin in between two wodden sticks" indicates that you consider doing things outside of school worthwhile. Its a sign that you can be passionate and care about something else apart from your own needs. Someone who gets involved in co-curriculars can stand up and get involved in something outside of their own little world. How about debating? How about the science Olympiads? How about the UNYC conference? Public speaking? representing your state in sport? Duke of Ed? Music?

I think someone who gets involved in these are the type of person to get involved in something big, someone who will if they opportunity come along jump for it. Even if at first they don't see a benefit for themselves apart fromt he experience.

Or how about learning how to be a leader of a group, how to oraganise a team, how about just doing something that's not academic for once?

I know you consider getting into the course and getting a job that the course is supposed to prepare yourself for are different things but I really don't see how you get that. When they choose people to go into a course, how are they not choosing future lawyers/vets/doctors/teachers etc. I just don't see where you are coming from in that aspect.

get the following through your thick, sure to not get into a decent course directly (mark my words), head

Wow... I was never rude to you and for your information I got a predicted UAI of 98.5... additionally I have a host of co-curriculars, and due to personal circumstances I am eligible for EAS which will pretty much guarantee me entry into almost any course I want.

I understand you disagreeing with me, but why is everyone who has a different point of view from you an idiot? I'd like to see your reasoning on that one.