Uni Entry System about to Collapse (SMH) - (re: UNSW) (1 Viewer)

[Raginsheep]

How about everyone just think of it this way:

The cutoff is 95.10. Get it and your in.

Otherwise, UNSW chucks the losers into hat and picks out the remaining. Is UNSW under any obligation to offer those remaining places? No. Its fuking charity ok.

UNSW should just give the remainder to the international students next time. Then at least we get some decent amounts of cash and we can always deport them if they get annoying.

 

[poloktim]

What you said is presumptuous. It is common sense that people who achieve high UAI generally do put effort into their study. And with absolutely no effort in study you probably won't get a very high UAI at all, unless ur definition of high is 30ish. What I said merely states the obvious, why do you keep using these extremely few examples to rebut a generally accepted fact which everyone agreed upon.

You can't seriously be saying that the only people who get high UAIs are those who study? You can't seriously take natural talent out of the equation, can you? They sit in class, they pick up what they need during class, they spit it out in a test. Photographic memories, for example.

Yeah sure, they failed to meet the selection criteria which the UNSW simply decided to adopt overnight without properly INFORM the students. As Smeed said "naturally you would expect at least 2 years warning for something like this so people would know which subjects to pick to assist them in receiving offers for their desired course."

Why two years? If UNSW believes this change will improve the quality of its students, then why should they have to wade through two years of some students they perceive might be of less quality? It's detrimental to the university, and therefore, ultimately to the students of the university.

First of all, there is not enough reasonable notice for students to know there are other criteria. Alternate entry schemes generally means EAS or special place for Indigenous Australians. In any other uni for any other field, if there is another selection criteria other than UAI, the UAC guide clearly states. eg: Medicine requires interview and UMAT. And Let me REPEAT dan_viper88's word again: "no where in the UAC guide or the UNSW B commerce course descriptor does it say that there is flexible entry scheme for students with UAI 10 points below the published cut-off!"

You're making more assumptions. This time your assumption is that "alternate entry schemes" means the well known EAS or Indigenous access schemes. If people made the same assumption you did, that is their problem. It's that simple. It may sound harsh, but that's it, sometimes people get rejected for reasons they don't see as valid. It doesn't change the fact that they've been rejected.

The fact that the vast majority of HSC students (that's why the news came as a surprise to everyone) do not know UNSW commerce accept students below the cut-off (exclude EAS) shows the lack of reasonable notice. Maybe it's time for these nerds at UNSW to communicate with students more often.

Or maybe the HSC students should have taken initiative and been "nerds" themselves and contact UNSW to ask about alternate entry schemes.

Only UNSW and UTS are frequently offering places to people below the cut-off.

You're joking right? Or was your research confined to UTS and UNSW?

And "The cutoffs indicate the lowest uai accepted for entry into the course they do not represent the average ability of the students accepted for the course" (refer to page 73 of 2007 UAC guide). What's the point of a selection criteria if people can get into the course without meeting the selection criteria?

They met other selection criteria. The UAC booklet explains the UAI cut-offs for universities when they use such cut-offs as a selection criteria. When they use alternate criteria, there are other factors.

This doesn't give them the excuse of not informing the students about their selection criteria. And no uni should suddenly decides to throw in a selection scheme without informing the students.

Perhaps they informed the students who called them of the selection criteria. Again, showing initiative and calling the university regarding the course you want to study can't hurt.

It's like one day UNSW medicine suddenly decides that everyone who wants to do Medicine must did PDHPE for HSC while don't clearly tell the students about their new selection criteria, how unreasonable is that?

Apples and oranges. Also, one could still get into commerce by meeting the original selection criteria (scoring a UAI of 95.01+). UNSW also has a right unless explicitly prohibited by law to determine what requirements a candidate must have passed in order to study at their university.

I did not use the statement "I already got the place I want, but certainly not in UNSW if it is filled with people like you" to construct any logical argument, I was merely stating a personal opinion about the place i want to be or don't want to be, hence there is no logical fallacy or Ad-hominem in that sentence.

You included an insult directed to me and people like me within a post containing your argument. It could be seen by some (as it was by me) as part of your argument, or simply as bait. Perhaps next time you could not insult somebody for having a different viewpoint to you, and understand that not everybody shares your viewpoint. Also, those that do not share your viewpoint aren't deserving of insults because of it. After all, you're no authority on universities, what is fair, and what is moral.

 

[Sparcod]

The definition of "cutoff" must've changed.

I agree that it is good to have other selection criterion than just UAI, but all I am asking is that UNSW INFORMS the students about their new selection criteria. In any other uni for any other field, if there is another selection criteria other than UAI, the UAC guide clearly states it. eg: Medicine requires interview and UMAT.

Yeh I agree with you.

 

[Smeed]

ALSO COOL MORON YOU WANNA FIGHT SHARKS VERSUS JETS LETS GO MAN I'M LAYIN IT ALL DOWN ON THE TABLE BUDDY BY THE WHARF LETS GO MAN BARE KNUCKLE I KNOWSO MANY WAYS TO KILL A MAN I COULD TAKE A FUCKIN PIMENTO AND SHOOT YOU AND BAM YOU'D BE DEAD MAN

DEAD I TELLS YA.

I'mma warning you boy

Man somebody ban this retard - I hate people like this who think they are so great because they can make big threats on the internet via their anonymous forum accounts when in reality they were just dropped on their head as a baby. If you can't respond to arguments in a constructive way then you shouldn't be making posts.

I think the point dan_viper88 and others are trying to make, which I agree with, is that a UAI cut-off, as defined by UAC, "indicates the lowest UAI accepted for entry into the course". Clearly UNSW's published cut-off does not reflect this, so it should either be 85.1 or be listed as N/A with an explanation that other selection methods were used. Clearly the cut-off has been listed at 95.1 to compete with USYD's Commerce cut-off and hence to mislead prospective students who may use the UAI cut-off as a factor in choosing a course (I am not saying that this is a good idea but it will happen nonetheless).

Also the major issue at hand here is the lack of prior warning given before the implementation of this scheme. Sure if UNSW want to implement this scheme it may be their prerogative, and this scheme may even turn out to be successful, but if they are suddenly going to change the rules, prospective applicants should be given adequate warning. There is no mention of any such scheme in the Commerce section of the UAC 2007 guide, whereas in other areas such as engineering the specifics of flexible-entry schemes are clearly highlighted. Clearly UNSW implemented the scheme as a last-ditch effort to compete with USYD when they realised demand for their course was too low, demonstrating a lack of integrity on their part.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Let's be clear here. Everyone has to do English. Ergo your objection pertains purely to one's decision of whether to undertake different maths courses. Half your objection to what UNSW has done is therefore gone.

Nevertheless, my point still remain valid, very few students have a clear idea of what they want to in year 10, they may not pick 2u Maths for HSC, but this doesn't mean they cannot be motivated commerce student, majors such as marketing and management requires less numerical skill.

I never said it was impossible for a student to do well if they had not undertaken maths. I said it was more probable that those who study maths and do well will be more suited:

The university is not laying down a general rule aout the competency of prospective Commerce students. Of course there are many exceptions. But the university obviously regards certain subjects as more probable in the selection of appropriate Commerce students. It is not saying "all students who don't do English and maths are unsuitable for Commerce." The university is saying "We have some spare places. We will consider those whose results in subjects related to Commerce and useful for Commerce are decent."

...the fact that UNSW never mentioned the fact that students who achieve good marks in English or Math can get into the degree 10 UAI below the cut-off made it more outrageous.

There was a statement in the UAC guide that HSC subjects may be taken into consideration. Considering it only relates to those who do not meet the cut-off, the lack of warning is in theory not a concern. The fact is that the university set a cut-off. If they do not fill the positions for those above the cut-off, then they look to other factors. The university does not know in advance how many gaps they will need to fill, and accordingly it does not know how many marks below the cut-off will be acceptable with the other factors. It can only know these things after preferences have been submitted.

I think the university is correct in looking at maths results as an indicator. But regardless, the university is entitled to use whatever academic criteria it thinks fit in choosing the people it thinks appropriate for its courses. You may think maths is not important for Commerce, but the university -- the people teaching Commerce, think otherwise..

oh, did u ask the opinion of ur lecturers for marketing and management? Maths is not the crucial factor for all Commerce majors.

I never said it was. But maths is important for some very significant Commerce-related subjects (and indeed the more puritan Commerce subjects such as accounting, finance and economics). Accordingly, why should they not take maths into account?

The flaw in your reasoning can be seen in an analogy. It is like choosing a player for a cricket team and saying "Don't take into account how someone fields! There is more to cricket than fielding! Cricket involves batting too!" Well, duh. But fielding is relevant to cricket, so why not take that into account?

Maths is indisputably related to Accounting (which is mandatory, at least in first year - and already has a huge fail rate) not to mention Finance and part of Economics.

As I said, Commerce majors such as economics or marketing requires less numerical skill and students with limited maths ability can still achieve high marks in these Commerce subjects.

I never said they couldn't. You again point out exceptions to the rule. Of course there are many exceptions. But there is an increased probability of them being suited for the subjects if they have an interest in and do well in maths. It is reasonable, therefore, for the university to look at those subjects as a factor in their considerations.

Again, as I said, a student with 95 UAI but didn't take maths may be as suitable for Commerce as a student with 80ish UAI who did take up maths.

See above.

A student with higher UAI has no less right to be a commerce student than a student with lower UAI,

This is just sloppy use of language which will advance the argument no-where. "Less right"? What do you mean by "less right"? That is a very vague moral assertion which doesn't really say anything meaningful.

...especially in the context UNSW never informed them that their selection of 2u maths may influence their chance of entry.

I hate to say this again, but here goes.

1. The UAC guide stated that HSC subjects may be taken into consideration for some UNSW courses. There were statements to the effect of "if you want any more information about entry into UNSW, contact the university." People chose not to and now act surprised. What do people expect?

2. Considering it only relates to those who did not make the cut-off, it is not a great concern.

And the fact that UNSW has spare places for commerce may suggest the cut-off is too high and it's time to lower ur superficial high cut-off.

As I said, the relationship between unfilled places and artificial UAI cut-offs was the real issue that should have been reported. However, all universities manipulate their cut-offs to some extent for a range of courses and they have been doing so for some time. So it should be investigated in respect of all institutions.

You should also know that beaten by Usyd in Commerce cut-off is not the end of the world.

That statement is completely immaterial to anything I have said. I never suggested otherwise. It seems to be some sort of indirect ad hominem attack suggesting that, as a UNSW student, I am insecure about the UNSW Commerce cut-off. Not only is that a fallacy of argument but it is wrong. I'm not even studying commerce. I'm an Arts/Law student. And I spent some time at USyd and am very fond of the place. Best to leave your side-swipes out of the discussion.

The UAC guide mentions it. If people can't be bothered to inquire it's their own fault.

As dan_viper88 said it: BUT NO WHERE IN THE UAC GUIDE OR THE UNSW B COMMERCE COURSE DESCRIPTOR DOES IT SAY THAT THERE IS FLEXIBLE ENTRY SCHEME FOR STUDENTS WITH UAI'S 10 POINTS BELOW THE PUBLISHED CUT OFF! Get real man! You obviously have the reading and understanding problem!

What's your point? If people don't see the statement "HSC subjects may be considered for entry into some courses" and do not inquire, then that is their problem.

No offence, but maybe you should seriously check if you have any reading or understanding problem, if you still think ur view on this subject is not at all influenced by the fact that you do go to UNSW.

That is an ad hominem attack. It is a fallacy of argument. Please try to avoid doing it.

 

[withoutaface]

Without having read a hell of a lot of the thread, I'll just say that if a university course (a bsc, for example) had a UAI cutoff of, say, 90, but a large percentage of the intake were people who had performed well in, say, English, drama and visual arts, while performing poorly in maths and science subjects, I would say that the university should not be bound by the UAI system to continue accepting students of questionable standing into their science course. They would be faced with the option of continuing to use the UAI and having students drop out at a remarkable rate, or using science and maths marks as part of the deciding factor and end up having students who will perform well in the course.

By the same token if it can be shown that communication and lateral thinking skills are beneficial to a commerce student (perhaps moreso than skills acquired in visual arts which may contribute to a high UAI student without the aforementioned attributes), and english and mathematics test these skills in a satisfactory manner, then I wouldn't hold it against UNSW in using this to choose their students.

 

[shannonm]

Hate to contribute to something already 15 pages long but,

Intellectual Arrogance. That's all this is. And all this talk of UNSW vs USYD - as in "Oh UNSW did x to compete" No they didn't. They filled ancillary places with a mechanism that did not end up poorly for people that had a UAI over the cutoff, and one that took other aspects into consideration.

It's not some giant conspiracy, it's just addressing certain issues where the HSC fails heavily.

The point is thou, is that unsw should have told students about this additional entrance scheme, before this current years hsc could pick their hsc subjects.

Of course, technically unsw could pick whoever they pleased to do their commerce program, and they are within their rights to do it - but from an ethical/moral viewpoint, prospective (pre-hsc) commerce students should have been notified that their subject selection can contribute to being selected in the course.

And I don't think anyone seriously thinks that prehsc kids will know to call up the 'acting dean of the faculty of business at the unsw' to verify that commerce intake will be subject to 'handpicking'. It's never been done in the past so it is fair to say that apretty much all students would assume it would be just done with uai mark. (Even thou, yes, it was stated that a 'limited' number of courses would use additional selection criteria)


I don't care how unsw picks their new students, as long as the students know about it beforehand (and if it involves taking adv. english and 4u maths, so be it).

Simply placing a note on their website under future students > undergraduate.
NSW high school students: Please note that due to feedback from employers and industry indicating that communication and quantitative skills are highly valued, a minority of students who display a superior performance in high level english and extension mathematics, but score a UAI under the published cutoff may be offered a place in the UNSW Commerce program.
Also note that students who score a UAI above the cutoff, will automatically be offered a place in UNSW Commerce, regardless of subects undertaken in the HSC.
Should have solved or at least alleviated the problem.


You just have to feel for the kids who picked hsc subjects based on 'do what you enjoy, dont pick higher scaling subjects' and did economics, business studies, etc. only to be outdone by kids with lower uai's who did adv. eng and 4u maths.

 

[poloktim]

The point is thou, is that unsw should have told students about this additional entrance scheme, before this current years hsc could pick their hsc subjects.

Why? If you're not good at mathematics or English, you're not going to do well in the HSC years. You'll be encouraged by your teachers to pick a general level, or in the case of mathematics, you may be encouraged by your teachers to not do it at all. Besides, selection based on mathematics and English was not the only way to select students. If you were able to achieve an UAI of over 95.10, you were accepted into the commerce course.

Of course, technically unsw could pick whoever they pleased to do their commerce program, and they are within their rights to do it - but from an ethical/moral viewpoint, prospective (pre-hsc) commerce students should have been notified that their subject selection can contribute to being selected in the course.

You cannot say this as you're no authority on morals or ethics. You make a big assumption in thinking that everybody shares your view on what is moral or ethical. From my perspective UNSW did nothing wrong morally or ethically. When the media does this and doesn't claim it as opinion, they lose credibility. SMH has lost a fair bit of credibility because of this.

And I don't think anyone seriously thinks that prehsc kids will know to call up the 'acting dean of the faculty of business at the unsw' to verify that commerce intake will be subject to 'handpicking'. It's never been done in the past so it is fair to say that apretty much all students would assume it would be just done with uai mark. (Even thou, yes, it was stated that a 'limited' number of courses would use additional selection criteria)

The thing is, year ten students are encouraged to pick subjects that they're good at, or that they enjoy. Somebody who is doing rather poorly at mathematics cannot be expected to choose Mathematics Extension I. They might be able to, and they might succeed, but many will likely crash and burn.
What I tried to say is that people who assumed they would be accepted into commerce, and weren't because of this new system had a personal responsibility to call the faculty and find out about alternate entry schemes. They would then find out that they have a chance of being accepted if they're below the cut-off and possess a high ability in Mathematics and/or English.

I don't care how unsw picks their new students, as long as the students know about it beforehand (and if it involves taking adv. english and 4u maths, so be it).

As I've stated numerous times, this would not help students in year ten. In order to do Advanced English and Mathematics Extension II, you need to possess a strong ability in English, and an even stronger ability in Mathematics. It is ultimately up to bot you and your school whether or not you take these subjects. In year ten, teachers encourage all students with an acceptable ability to take advanced subjects, or extension subjects. If they don't, that becomes the student's problem. All actions have consequences, some are unforeseen. It may be regrettable but that is life.

Simply placing a note on their website under future students > undergraduate.
NSW high school students: Please note that due to feedback from employers and industry indicating that communication and quantitative skills are highly valued, a minority of students who display a superior performance in high level english and extension mathematics, but score a UAI under the published cutoff may be offered a place in the UNSW Commerce program.
Also note that students who score a UAI above the cutoff, will automatically be offered a place in UNSW Commerce, regardless of subects undertaken in the HSC.
Should have solved or at least alleviated the problem.

It said in the UAC guide that alternate entry schemes exist, it also says that students who have any questions should call the relevant people. If they called the relevant people they could've alleviated the problem for themselves. Showing some self-initiative never hurts: "Hi, my name is <name here> and I'm from <school here>. I'm calling to find out about alternate entry schemes for Commerce placements..." Could've alleviated the problem.

You just have to feel for the kids who picked hsc subjects based on 'do what you enjoy, dont pick higher scaling subjects' and did economics, business studies, etc. only to be outdone by kids with lower uai's who did adv. eng and 4u maths.

I don't feel for the kids. You don't go to high school to get into university. The purpose of high school is to get an education. These people got an education in the areas they wanted to. They should be happy with that. A smaller part of high school is based on getting a place into a university. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. These people followed the system like everybody else in the HSC who applied for a university place. They failed, like thousands of students, they did not succeed in getting their desired place. I don't feel for them at all. If they did well enough to get into UNSW should the UAI be five points lower, then they have every opportunity to get into another university.

 

[shannonm]

What I tried to say is that people who assumed they would be accepted into commerce, and weren't because of this new system had a personal responsibility to call the faculty and find out about alternate entry schemes. They would then find out that they have a chance of being accepted if they're below the cut-off and possess a high ability in Mathematics and/or English.

Which is similar to someone recently who said
"1. The UAC guide stated that HSC subjects may be taken into consideration for some UNSW courses. There were statements to the effect of "if you want any more information about entry into UNSW, contact the university." People chose not to and now act surprised. What do people expect?"

That's where I disagree, I understand that technically it is the students responsibility to do this, but realistically I doubt any hsc student in the state rung up to check if commerce would be included in the 'limited courses' that had alternate entry criteria, considering the course has never had alternate entry criteria in the past.

If the courses you required for your uni degree were on the university website, do you personally ring up the faculty office and double check if the listed courses are the actual courses you were required to take for that session / or need in order to graduate?

Information provided about subjects, units, courses and any arrangements for courses including staffing, are an expression of intent only and are not to be taken as a firm offer or undertaking. The University reserves the right to discontinue or vary such subjects, units, courses, or arrangements or staffing at any time without notice and to impose limitations on enrolment in any course.
...
There is no guarantee given as to the accuracy or currency of any individual item on the server.

If you did get screwed over as in the above example, would you admit it was your fault for not double checking? (I really should have doubled checked.. Oh well shit happens I'll just have to be at uni for another year)

While the uni can change whatever they damn well please, in my opinion they should inform students directly affected by any changes.
Especially if it's the first time such a change would be implemented. (If the same thing happened next year I would have a different opinion because people are now aware that commerce / UNSW in general is capable of randomly having alernate entry criteria).

It said in the UAC guide that alternate entry schemes exist, it also says that students who have any questions should call the relevant people. If they called the relevant people they could've alleviated the problem for themselves. Showing some self-initiative never hurts: "Hi, my name is <name here> and I'm from <school here>. I'm calling to find out about alternate entry schemes for Commerce placements..." Could've alleviated the problem.

Yes that would have alleviated the problem, but seriously how many people (year 12 kids) would you have expected to do that? Especially since it had never happened before this year (I can expect people to call up and check for courses next year thou, because there is now a precedent in randomly adding alternate entry criteria to mass entry courses).

I don't feel for the kids. You don't go to high school to get into university. The purpose of high school is to get an education. These people got an education in the areas they wanted to. They should be happy with that. A smaller part of high school is based on getting a place into a university. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. These people followed the system like everybody else in the HSC who applied for a university place. They failed, like thousands of students, they did not succeed in getting their desired place. I don't feel for them at all. If they did well enough to get into UNSW should the UAI be five points lower, then they have every opportunity to get into another university.

2 students and their UAI's:
A 95.05 (standard eng, business studies, economics, 4units xxx)
B 86.50 (advanced eng, 4units maths, 4units xxx)

Pretty much any other year student A would have gotten in unsw commerce (and if they kept entry to just uai, the cutoff would have been below 95.05 and he'd have got in.
But this year theoretically student B could have got in at the expense of student A .

The whole point of the uai is to give normalised rank for people taking different courses (the added difficulty of adv eng and 4unit maths has already been taken into account in B's uai of 86.50).

If you understand the above little scenario and still hold your view, that's fine and that's where our little difference of opinion is.






Also you mention the schools role in this:
"You'll be encouraged by your teachers to pick a general level, or in the case of mathematics, you may be encouraged by your teachers to not do it at all"
"Somebody who is doing rather poorly at mathematics cannot be expected to choose Mathematics Extension I. "
"It is ultimately up to bot[h] you and your school whether or not you take these subjects. "

Perhaps we both went to different types of school but where I went students were allowed to take whatever they like, as long as it was offered by the school.

An idiot like me faced no resistance getting in to advanced english (Someone has to come in the bottom 6% of the state, right?!)



So if you and others think the uni changing entrance criteria w/o telling students is fine, that's alright with me, I just wanted to know where the disagreement lied with this topic

Cheers

 

[RideTheLightnin]

Medicine, Pharmacy and other courses require additional criteria....if UNSW wants to stay at the fore.....why cant it use additional criteria too?

 

[watatank]

So what if people didn't get in...they didnt make the cutoff....With UAIs like those its still possible to study Commerce at another university....get top honours...and that will be as good as getting a degree at UNSW...

 

[Conspirocy]

lets look at this a different way.

one of the big complaints is that people didn't put unsw as a preference because they didnt know. now I dunno but i think that if even more people applied the cutoff would have been even higher. possible making it harder to get into unsw com than before for everyone.

so your screwed either way

 

[Conspirocy]

Well if the university did state that they strongly would choose 1 student over the other for doing 4unit maths over someone who did 2unit maths for example then applicants to the course (B comm) Definatelly DO HAVE THE RIGHT to know what the exact selection criterion is, by withholding critcal selection information like this it may drastically affect someones decsion in which course they would pick in their preferences. The UNI shouldnt provide misleading information to students, i dont agree in your comments, how can you sit and say that its not really a big deal that they didnt clearly state that maths was required, Off course it makes a diffenece, if the UNSW wants to sit and give out offers to below UAI students then they Should clearly state THAT THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILTY IN THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR B COMMERCE STUDENTS!

okay how do they calculate your uai. Does UAC disclose that exactly? Do they justify in reality why certain subjects scale the way they do? What were your actual HSC marks raw, not your scalled ones? What was your rank in the state for each subject you took?

So the 'Bands' that are given out by the Board of Studies arent Misleading? Where is the public outcry??
None of this is disclosed (except maybe how to calculate the UAI, can't be bothered checking). What makes unsw so special that they have to tell you everything.

In fact if you actually got your raw marks from HSC, everyone would shut up.

Anyway, after reading a bit today I agree people did get jipped. Personally I dont think you should have a two way system with a uni based criteria and the uai as there is no accountability.

But end of the day its UNSW loss, they could have taken students with uais of 94 down and they took people with in the 80s. Their decision, their reputation, I guess we will see if it works or not

 

[jdcb4]

Was a bit rough not letting people know beforehand but I think the idea in itself is good.
People here seem to concerned with arguing the micro (UNSW Commerce degrees) and seem to ignore the macro.
UAI is not the ultimate determiner of how well someone will do at University.

For a start English is compulsory in UAI calculation. If someone who nails 4U maths, Physics and Chem but flunks English they, regrdless of their UAI, are probably still more apt Engineering students than someone who gets 99 UAI doing Eng,Drama,Art,Ancient, and PE for example
Vice Versa Someone who excels at Math and Science and secures a 99+ UAI while probably still be shit at B Performing Arts (Or something else, I dunno)
UNSW didn't make a public announcement 12 months earlier announcing that they would favour god marks in relevant subjects, big deal. The system that they are implementing is still superior to the UAI for most courses.

I probably haven't said anything that hasn't already been said, but due to lack of willpower to read all 14 pages this will be poste anyway.

 

[dan_viper88]

dan_viper88 since when do universities publicly announce how many spots they have for a course?

I dont remember in any of my threads to have stated that universities announce how many spots they have for a course, nor did i engage in any discussion of this sort, all i have been talking about in my threads is the way in which the UNSW went about giving places to lower UAI students. Read my comments before you make irrelevant comments!

 

[dan_viper88]

Man somebody ban this retard - I hate people like this who think they are so great because they can make big threats on the internet via their anonymous forum accounts when in reality they were just dropped on their head as a baby. If you can't respond to arguments in a constructive way then you shouldn't be making posts.

I think the point dan_viper88 and others are trying to make, which I agree with, is that a UAI cut-off, as defined by UAC, "indicates the lowest UAI accepted for entry into the course". Clearly UNSW's published cut-off does not reflect this, so it should either be 85.1 or be listed as N/A with an explanation that other selection methods were used. Clearly the cut-off has been listed at 95.1 to compete with USYD's Commerce cut-off and hence to mislead prospective students who may use the UAI cut-off as a factor in choosing a course (I am not saying that this is a good idea but it will happen nonetheless).

Also the major issue at hand here is the lack of prior warning given before the implementation of this scheme. Sure if UNSW want to implement this scheme it may be their prerogative, and this scheme may even turn out to be successful, but if they are suddenly going to change the rules, prospective applicants should be given adequate warning. There is no mention of any such scheme in the Commerce section of the UAC 2007 guide, whereas in other areas such as engineering the specifics of flexible-entry schemes are clearly highlighted. Clearly UNSW implemented the scheme as a last-ditch effort to compete with USYD when they realised demand for their course was too low, demonstrating a lack of integrity on their part.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I totally agree!

 

[vnblueberry]

Was a bit rough not letting people know beforehand but I think the idea in itself is good.
People here seem to concerned with arguing the micro (UNSW Commerce degrees) and seem to ignore the macro.
UAI is not the ultimate determiner of how well someone will do at University.

For a start English is compulsory in UAI calculation. If someone who nails 4U maths, Physics and Chem but flunks English they, regrdless of their UAI, are probably still more apt Engineering students than someone who gets 99 UAI doing Eng,Drama,Art,Ancient, and PE for example
Vice Versa Someone who excels at Math and Science and secures a 99+ UAI while probably still be shit at B Performing Arts (Or something else, I dunno)
UNSW didn't make a public announcement 12 months earlier announcing that they would favour god marks in relevant subjects, big deal. The system that they are implementing is still superior to the UAI for most courses.

I probably haven't said anything that hasn't already been said, but due to lack of willpower to read all 14 pages this will be poste anyway.

but i believe it is a determiner if you deserve to be in it or not. if you worked hard in yr 12, you should get the course you want. i understand if the student might not be 'suited' best for his/her course, but thats the way i always perceived from the HSC. study hard, get the required uai, get in your course, no questions asked, no reason for you not to get it.

however, everyone's posts are as valid as mine.
just inputting my two cents

 

[stephenchow]

Everyone is just repeating the same thing over and over again.

And some people seem to have a thick head. UNSW was never misleading, it's just that some of you seem angry that you failed to read what was written in the UAC guide.

And also, for those who didn't put down Commerce at UNSW as part of their preferences because they thought their UAI wasn't good enough, well, you failed as well because it's called preferences i.e. it is what you want to do not you think your UAI isn't good enough so you don't get in.

 

[watatank]

Isn't the UAI cut-off the lowest UAI requirement for guaranteed entry?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

So, has the system collapsed yet?