Uni Entry System about to Collapse (SMH) - (re: UNSW) (2 Viewers)

[mimiian]

The university is most qualified to select people whom they think will be most fitting to their courses and they should have every right to do so. So in my opinion it is a much more sensible system for "next best" candidates.

It's like all those people who do 4U maths, Chemistry, Physics, Economics, etc and go and do law. They often are not suited to the course at all, are not interested in it, and those with lower UAIs who are more suited, more passionate or more set on pursuing a career in law miss out.

If a university is going to select people for unfilled places below the UAI, so long as they inform people, I see no reason why they should not be able to use their (very reasonable) selection criteria.

It would be absurd to judge a student's suitability for a particularly degree based on his or her subject selection for the HSC.

I selected all the science subjects for my HSC, eg: physics, chemistry, 4u maths. But half way through year 12 I found that what i am really interested in is humanities and law and that's what i am doing now. If UNSW sees my subject selection, they may think i am a suitable candidate for an engineering degree but not law or arts. Similarly, students who did all the business and economics subjects in year 12 may not be suitable for a commerce degree. Very few students had an idea what they really want to do when they choose their subjects at the beginning of year 11.

The fact that UNSW just decided to use their own system without any warning or informing anyone till the release date made it even more outrageous.

 

[Bookie]

wow, commerce at unsw looks packed.

with asians.

must be a crap subject.

the above three lines were posted on boredofstudies. quote that SMH.

 

[Bookie]

one thing, the other ways of getting into commerce were outlined in the UAC guide. students should have been aware of this, and thus, there should be no complaints. they applied for a course which had so and so entry schemes. they knew it well enough.

mountain out of a molehill.

i got into my course through flexible entry because it was available. why wouldnt i take the oppurtunity presented? the university (in whichever case, mine or UNSW commerce) is doing the right thing by offering places to those who wish to do it, and may so do it well, but cant get in through the UAI system because of other reasons (SUCH AS FUCKING GAY EAS PROCEDURES, thats where the UAC sucks, not commerce admission).

stop complaining and download free chaser episodes.

 

[zeek]

meh, EAS isn't all that...

 

[MoonlightSonata]

It would be absurd to judge a student's suitability for a particularly degree based on his or her subject selection for the HSC.

I selected all the science subjects for my HSC, eg: physics, chemistry, 4u maths. But half way through year 12 I found that what i am really interested in is humanities and law and that's what i am doing now. If UNSW sees my subject selection, they may think i am a suitable candidate for an engineering degree but not law or arts. Similarly, students who did all the business and economics subjects in year 12 may not be suitable for a commerce degree. Very few students had an idea what they really want to do when they choose their subjects at the beginning of year 11.

The fact that UNSW just decided to use their own system without any warning or informing anyone till the release date made it even more outrageous.

Once again, for the people who cannot read: the university is only looking at subject results for English and maths if you do not meet the cut-off requirement. It is not a general filter. Anyone who actually makes the cut-off requirement will get in.

And it is not absurd to use the subject results of maths and English, for many reasons. First, everyone takes English, so there is no problem with using that. Second, the subjects people choose and their results in them often reflect their abilities and interests in those areas. If someone is failing 2U maths then maybe a career in accounting isn't for you. Likewise if you're getting 70 for Standard English, good luck studying law.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

wow, commerce at unsw looks packed.

with asians.

must be a crap subject.

the above three lines were posted on boredofstudies. quote that SMH.

A friend of mine used to joke that if you find yourself in a class without any Asians in it, you're in trouble.

 

[Mumma]

UAI should be replaced with a series of marks

1. for English n HSIC style of subjects

2. Science n technology

3. Maths


it seems to fit the type of degree a person wants to get into

That is actually a pretty damn good idea.

And to all those whiners who keep saying "THIS IS SO OUTRAGEOUS", please shut the fuck up. Oh no my silly UAI is useless, duh, its a fucking number that means nothing. I hope this UAI system dies off, and that the people who designed it burn in hell for being dumbcunts.

 

[jpr333]

Fuck yeah cuz a system like Qld's got is so much more fucking comprehensive and fair eh????????????

 

[YBK]

wow, people should stop complaining, you make yourselves sound like whining idiots. What's so great about the UAI system anyway? How is someone who did subjects such as art, history or geography and managed to scrape a UAI of 93 more worthy than someone who did 4u maths and only managed an 89 UAI to study commerce? You do realise there is so much rote learning in the HSC and for problem solving (a huge aspect of commerce) the 4U maths course is one of the only HSC subjects that aids in problem solving and distinguishes those who rote learn to those who think.

I see nothing wrong with what UNSW did; in fact, I think it's great that the UAI might finally phase out!

 

[shinji]

the 4U maths course is one of the only HSC subjects that aids in problem solving and distinguishes those who rote learn to those who think.

i think this last years 3u exam also calls for this? haha.
as it was different from previous exams.

and i appluad for unsw for being non-conformists and doin stuff their own way! =]

 

[Sprinkles~]

the university (in whichever case, mine or UNSW commerce) is doing the right thing by offering places to those who wish to do it, and may so do it well, but cant get in through the UAI system because of other reasons (SUCH AS FUCKING GAY EAS PROCEDURES, thats where the UAC sucks, not commerce admission).

I completely agree, especially with the "fucking gay EAS procedures" part. The EAS is a pretty pathetic compensation system if you've been disadvantaged.

I think it's the way universities should be doing it in the first place, it makes sense, so much more sense than the stupid UAI system. If someone didn't get the required UAI but did brilliantly in subjects related to their course, such as the example of UNSW Commerce and mathematics, then why shouldn't they get in?

If their strengths lie in that area then the university is doing the right thing by accepting them because they'll be likely to excel in their uni course, so they deserve that chance. It seems much fairer than the UAI system to me.

I see nothing wrong with what UNSW did; in fact, I think it's great that the UAI might finally phase out!

Maybe!

 

[Sparcod]

wow, people should stop complaining, you make yourselves sound like whining idiots. What's so great about the UAI system anyway? How is someone who did subjects such as art, history or geography and managed to scrape a UAI of 93 more worthy than someone who did 4u maths and only managed an 89 UAI to study commerce? You do realise there is so much rote learning in the HSC and for problem solving (a huge aspect of commerce) the 4U maths course is one of the only HSC subjects that aids in problem solving and distinguishes those who rote learn to those who think.

I see nothing wrong with what UNSW did; in fact, I think it's great that the UAI might finally phase out!

What does "UAI Cutoff" mean again?

Seriously, if someone got 95.05 and got into commerce at UNSW, as if 95.10 is the cut-off.

 

[Sparcod]

Is this the first time this has happened? Seriously, it came without warning.

 

[Raginsheep]

What does "UAI Cutoff" mean again?

Seriously, if someone got 95.05 and got into commerce at UNSW, as if 95.10 is the cut-off.

"Cutoff" means that if you get 95.10 or greater, then you will definately get into commerce if its your first preference. If you fail to get that cutoff and there are positions still avaliable, then other criteria will apply.

 

[Sparcod]

I was a bit sarcastic there. Obviously, the meaning changed this year. I should've applied for UNSW Commere/Law- I would've got it. I was thinking..nah...the UAI cutoff has always been, this many, points higher than my actual UAI.
This Sucks.

 

[sunjet]

YBK; it's not hard to get a UAI over 90 even with the 'mediocre' subjects.

 

[Bookie]

i actually wrote a blog. but decided posting it there because of all the racial, sexual, societal, stupid people vilification that would be associated with it and the resulting ramifications.

so as an aside, heres what would have been on my blog [and hence the boredofstudies front page]

Today's article in the newspaper "Uni entry system close to collapse" [http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/01/18/1169095908939.html?from=top5] has caused an amount of discussion. Now, being a student, I would like to take part in this discussion, where we must see what the actual problem is.

The article by Anna Patty and Harriet Alexander suggests that because the universities (namely UNSW and UTS) are admitting students lower than published cut-offs into certain courses (only two out of the many hundreds throughout the state), the state's education system is in a catastrophic. Oh, how I love the media. Part of general knowledge and the basic fundamental principle behind Module C of the HSC English course is that the media enjoys turning mountains into molehills.

"And the Herald has discovered that universities are starting to ignore the UAI by hand-picking students on their skills or achievements in individual HSC subjects."

That's all very well, but during this 'discovery', was page 219 of the UAC 2007 Guide covered? Under "Admission Requirements" clearly states that students may gain admission through Performance in Year 12 subjects - limited courses only. The UAC 2007 Guide was published 8 months before this supposed debacle arose. Wherein lies the problem?

The people latching onto 'stories' and posts made by members with 2 or 3 posts saying that they didnt get in even though their UAI exceeded the published cutoff. That is pretty much an impossible situation. What is not impossible, however, is a student/person with a penchant for having a laugh and causing a stir creating a 'troll' account and posting a lie. However, the media seizes the oppurtunity to create the mountain out of an anthill (while the alliteration of using 'molehill' might be hilarious, I've never actually seen one, while I have seen quite a few anthills in my time - truth.) and the millions of lackeys join the parade and continue whinging.

This condition of entry was published before, and like a loophole in an employment contract - it was acted upon and now kids who didnt get the oppurtunity to do Commerce at UNSW (maybe becuase certain institutions didnt offer them Access after they were in hospital for three months during the critical stage of their HSC - THATS WHERE THE REAL PROBLEM LIES, GO DISCOVER WHAT'S GOING ON THERE) were offered a place to do what they really wanted. There are flexible entry schemes for everything, and well done to the students who were offered a place.

And as for the 'case' of the 'student' who was denied an offer even though his UAI was above the required cutoff. Go and 'discover' that there may infact be more than one account from the IP where that post originated from.

Point of this post (yes, this is also a "Posting on the Boredofstudies student website") is to say "shut up" to the whingers. The condition was already known, students were offered a place as part of the condition, and everyone is happy.

And if there really was "One student claimed to have scored a UAI of 95.3, which is above the cut-off mark, and failed to gain entry into the UNSW commerce course, despite it being listed as the first preference on their application", then he/she should be offered the course, and it was mostly likely a database error.

But I doubt that.

Now, shut up, all of you, and congratulations on your offers.

Best of luck to everyone.

 

[Armenikum]

In case any DFEE's hadn't been aware, I read from another forum that Med graduates who pay do Med by paying their fees upfront, aren't guaranteed an internship.

Take that Rich people

 

[shannonm]

That's all very well, but during this 'discovery', was page 219 of the UAC 2007 Guide covered? Under "Admission Requirements" clearly states that students may gain admission through Performance in Year 12 subjects - limited courses only. The UAC 2007 Guide was published 8 months before this supposed debacle arose. Wherein lies the problem?

mate, the problem is that there is that this is the first time unsw has been 'handpicking' students based on the hsc subjects they did (for entry to commerce)

in my opinion, unsw should have given students at least 2 years notice that their selection and decent performance in advanced english, as well as ext2 maths would give them 'an advantage' or help them into getting into commerce. (i.e that commerce was on this list of 'limited courses'...

and yes, i am dissapointed like you, at the smh using random quotes from this internet forum to supprt their arguement.



on a side note; distinction average 4th yr engineer here who failed to get into combined comm/eng - i wonder what kind of 'communication and quantitative skills' unsw expect from hsc kids that they dont teach in 3 years of unsw coursework?

 

[mimiian]

Once again, for the people who cannot read: the university is only looking at subject results for English and maths if you do not meet the cut-off requirement. It is not a general filter. Anyone who actually makes the cut-off requirement will get in.

And it is not absurd to use the subject results of maths and English, for many reasons. First, everyone takes English, so there is no problem with using that. Second, the subjects people choose and their results in them often reflect their abilities and interests in those areas. If someone is failing 2U maths then maybe a career in accounting isn't for you. Likewise if you're getting 70 for Standard English, good luck studying law.

If UNSW seriously think ppl who fail 2u maths or English should not be doing commerce, then they should explicitly state that good marks in these subjects are prerequisites.

Furthermore, failing 2u maths doesn't mean one is doomed to fail in Commerce, majors such as economics or management or marketing require less numerical skills.

The fact that everyone takes English as a subject does not automatically qualifies that there is no problem using that as a standard. People who do not excel in English are not necessarily bad Commerce students, there are friends of mine who did ESL english or standard english for HSC but still manage to achieve high marks for commerce subjects in uni. The link between Commerce and English is not as apparent as the link between Law or Literature and English.

I just think UNSW should not suddenly decided to use its own system and selection criterion without give an obvious warning to the students. Some students may be really eager to study commerce and aced in all the business study and economics for HSC, but did not put as much effort in English or maths, so maybe a warning would be helpful to them.