Uai (1 Viewer)

[felafel]

why are there full-fee paying places?

simply because the universities want more funding, nothing to do with the "limitations of entry by blah blah . . ."

so . . . fee pay into any university course? not the right way to go

 

[xeuyrawp]

Unfortunately my friend, UAI cutoffs are not any sort of reflection of how well suited a person is to studying a particular area - they are about supply and demand. There are people who work fucking hard (and there is a huge distinction between the effort and dedication required for a 96.3 and 99.6) to do a course - they are the people who DESERVE to actually do a course, not the people who can pay $18,000.

There's no doubt that someone who gets 99.6 is not inherently more suited to the practice of law than someone who got 96.3. But someone who got 99.6 is more deserving of the opportunity - thats the system. In fact - anyone who gets between 96.3 and 99.6 is more deserving of the opportunity to study law at the university of Sydney.

Tell me - why should a person be able to fork out $18 000 and a subordinate UAI to go to the most sought after, prestigious law course when there are a number of law courses they are already eligible for? Macquarie, ANU, Wollongong, UWS etc etc.

This is not a question of ability - this is a question of people being able to rort the system and take places from people who have actually worked their asses off to get to Law at Sydney.

I can honestly say that, if I could afford it, I wanted to go to Sydney, and my marks were too low, I'd fork up the money.

I think most people would, too. I agree that it's perhaps "unfair", but it's also "unfair" that heaps of HSC students get the questions head of time because they have HSC exam-writers at their school who advise they "write exam-style X question, just to get practice".

*sigh, I'm too lazy to finish this*- in conclusion, the HSC can be very unfair, so can the entrance to Uni, but so can the law- the profession you're trying to enter.