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

[Julz_012]

i agree that it isnt fair, but it worked well for me. i dont understand why as i had a shocking mark in eng adv and i did 4 unit math but sucked at that too.

but i did ok in physics which might play a part given i got into an engineering degree...
oh well, yay for me

 

[Mr.Bark]

after going on my school forum yesterday and discovering this i went to the paper (trusty telegraph) and lo and behold i found this..

"Some current Year 12 applicants may receive an offer to a course even though they have a UAI below the UAI published as the cut-off for the course. In such cases. the institution concerned has used other selection criteria in addition to or instead of the UAI . The institution in Part 2 of the UAC 2007 guide give further information."

intrigued i picked up my trusty UAC guide flicked to part 2 then went to UNSW..

UNSW Admission Requirements:

"UNSW has a number of alternative pathways for admission, which may allow 2006 NSW and ACT Year 12 applicants to receive an offer to a course even though they have a UAI below the published cut-off. They include:
*Educational Access Scheme - ACCESS Scheme.
*Australian Aboriginal and Torres Stait Islander Admissions Scheme
*Faculty of Engineering Admission Scheme (FEAS)
*Performance in Year 12 subjects - limited courses only.For details read the relevant sections in the UNSW entry..
now feeling i'm on something, i look up the UNSW commerce entry in the guide and saw no details regarding this..except (paraphrasing) 'for addictional information read the handbook or ring the institution' then as some people (including the vulturous SMH reporter) i rang the number but it was engaged..
this all seems very dodgy to me, but i think this is enough to remove them of liability. Though this does seem to be a competitive practice directed at USYD..considering their commerce cut-offs were higher last year signifiing a more in demand course (thus in the eyes of many) better quality (although not necessarily true) UNSW may of been lured to rise the cut-offs for pure ego..
to me this does seem dodgy..for people getting higher UAIs (a point or more) than last years commerce cut-offs and not getting in because other people who got 85 took their place..i do question UNSW...:mad1:

 

[mitsui]

I know ppl who got in without a high mark in English and didnt choose 4u or even 3u maths.
Their uai range from 89~93.

 

[pLuvia]

I know ppl who got in without a high mark in English and didnt choose 4u or even 3u maths.
Their uai range from 89~93.

Same, but all of them 4u English if that means anything

 

[thenothing]

It's ridiculous, you can't change rules on students at the last minute. Fact is, someone who got a UAI of 93 did better than someone who got 87, hence they should get in.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

That article is complete rubbish.

"THE universities admissions index system is in crisis" -- what a joke! Talk about media agenda. I can't believe SMH would write something so politically motivated without classing it under opinion.

No-one has been denied a place for being higher than the cut-off. What the university has done (and has made clear) is that it, for those who were somewhat below the UNSW Commerce cut-off, then they may yet make it in if they have good maths and English skills. In other words, if there are places left over, they are being given to those most qualified for the Commerce program.

"The system is also being undermined by students with inferior marks paying their way into university and then transferring into the government-subsidised Higher Education Contribution Scheme 12 months later, avoiding up to $100,000 in fees." Again, complete nonsense. Those transfer students compete with other transfer students just like an ordinary transfer process, and they must meet the same cut-offs. There is nothing untoward about this.

Very misleading and silly stuff.

 

[volition]

I can understand why UNSW want to try and increase the number of students who pass, but I think it's harsh to introduce this kind of selective measure without any warning. I'm actually a little disappointed with them for this

 

[thenothing]

We were always told the next best candidate was the next UAI. They've changed the rules on students after they've done all the work. Students were not informed that the criteria had changed.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

We were always told the next best candidate was the next UAI. They've changed the rules on students after they've done all the work. Students were not informed that the criteria had changed.

Pick up your UAC guide --

intrigued i picked up my trusty UAC guide flicked to part 2 then went to UNSW..

UNSW Admission Requirements:

"UNSW has a number of alternative pathways for admission, which may allow 2006 NSW and ACT Year 12 applicants to receive an offer to a course even though they have a UAI below the published cut-off. They include:
*Educational Access Scheme - ACCESS Scheme.
*Australian Aboriginal and Torres Stait Islander Admissions Scheme
*Faculty of Engineering Admission Scheme (FEAS)
*Performance in Year 12 subjects - limited courses only.For details read the relevant sections in the UNSW entry..

 

[thenothing]

Okay, so if students dug around they would have been informed.

In my opinion, that method leaves a lot of room for mistakes. With so many students, it would be impossible to compare them all accurately, unlike the UAI.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

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.

 

[shinji]

yeah ... i dunno

i might've been accepted to commerce due to my extreme passion towards business/commerce/economics. haha

all my 9 choices were either business/commerce/eco/law.
XD

and i didn't really get that outstanding results,,, so i think that may be it?

 

[Raginsheep]

We were always told the next best candidate was the next UAI.

Then alot more people I know would be doing medicine. If you read the article, its correct that employers are looking for graduates with more quantative skills. So UNSW decided that this would be the best way to get some of these students. Whether it actually works is a different story. UNSW had vacancies in commerce last year so they're probably trying to fill some of those spots now.

As for the UAI cutoff, I assume that for UNSW commerce at least, its a clear cutoff, i.e, if you get 95.10 or greater, then you will definately get a spot.

I'll say that they should've told you guys more clearly but then again, its in the UAC guide.

 

[Raginsheep]

If you get the UAI, then there's no problem. If you don't get the UAI and your english/maths sucked so that you don't get in, then you obviously failed to make the selection criteria. If you don't get the UAI and didn't pick maths even though you're good at it, then bad luck.

Its not first preference going to eng/4u maths students, its UAI first, then if theres vacancies, other criteria for those who don't have the required UAI.

 

[jb_nc]

Anyone emailed scoop@smh.com.au? I knew they would pick up the story.

 

[shinji]

i still don't get how it's based on 4u and english..

look at my marks, i get pretty average results for english and non-spectacular for maths. (low b6).

i rekkon what plays a major role in it is the students passion for the subject, no?

 

[Raginsheep]

Passion for the subject? How dow they know if you have a passion for the subject or not?

 

[jb_nc]

I think this should make UAC publish the 'offers below the clearly-in' like VTAC does. At least then we would see the probably 25% of offers made to people under the UAI.

 

[stephenchow]

Looks like USYD >UNSW in Commerce now.

 

[Raginsheep]

Looks like USYD >UNSW in Commerce now.

Why? Because it has people with a UAI of 90? Doesn't the standard of teaching need to be evaluated before you can make such a statement?