Unis turn away from single entry mark (1 Viewer)

[K.]

<3 Schwartz

We're going to plaster his face for a cast and make him he's own skeletal head, possibly some soft tissue to go with it too.

<3 Schwartz.

 

[msh]

this test should be a choice to those who missed out with the uai.. otherwise it will be too stressful, having to sit even more tests after the hsc

 

[Danger]

where and when will this be taking place?

 

[Season]

Meh its one of the moves to make our tertiary system more like the the US and UK system where they take into account other factors like co-curricular activities and so forth.

All I know is I know many perfectionists who are involved in nothing, but whom I know will get a UAI over 99, their attitudes are scary, they really are and I don't htink how much you can study will make you a good business man or a lawyer. 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.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Better the perfectionists than the 90% of school leaving uni students who do fark all work and are only there for "uni life" or because real life is too much hard work

 

[poloktim]

Meh its one of the moves to make our tertiary system more like the the US and UK system where they take into account other factors like co-curricular activities and so forth.

All I know is I know many perfectionists who are involved in nothing, but whom I know will get a UAI over 99, their attitudes are scary, they really are and I don't htink how much you can study will make you a good business man or a lawyer. 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.

So: "get into uni if you can name me five times you've been drunk" ?

It's called responsibility. You need it for uni.

 

[Anonymou5]

So many people are ignorant to the fact that you don't need to study all day to get decent marks. You just need a bit of discipline (+ aptitude) and study at the critical times. Just because you're lacking in the talent department, don't assume that others need to devote their life to study to get (much) higher marks than you.

There's a big difference between not having enough time to do a sufficient amount study and just being someone who should quit uni and go to tafe.

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.

 

[lala2]

I think this option should be available ONLY for students who fail to meet the cutoff in less demanding courses, and for students who wish to enter the really demanding courses where it's shown that the UAI is not a good predictor alone, e.g. medicine, law. I don't like the idea of it becoming a standard entry process for all universities though--personally, I think it'd undermine the whole meaning of the HSC.

 

[Season]

So: "get into uni if you can name me five times you've been drunk" ?

It's called responsibility. You need it for uni.

Funny how you automatically assumed when I said "a life outside of studying" you thought I meant getting drunk, you can have outside interests and still have a life. Look if you happen to be a 99ner and do have an awesome social life, then kudos this won't affect you.

Additionally it has been proven that the people who get 99 in the HSC are not always the ones who get the top uni marks.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

No but there's too many things that depend on stupid extracurricular activities already, like

"ok you can have this job/scholarship/whatever because you captained your under 7 soccer team and that gave you extremely valuable leadership skills that this person with far superior academic results clearly lacks"

 

[DownInFlames]

There are some courses that NEED to have candidature screened
eg. girl who can't hold her own in social situations and is very easily offended by ANYTHING shouldn't get into law, and if she does it's pretty stupid because someone capable of coping should have taken the place.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

If she gets the required mark then she's entitled to the place, and if she ends up failing horribly at lawyer...ing, then it's her own bad luck

 

[DownInFlames]

I like the method they use in ACT: continuous assessment.

 

[Anonymou5]

eg. girl who can't hold her own in social situations and is very easily offended by ANYTHING shouldn't get into law, and if she does it's pretty stupid because someone capable of coping should have taken the place.

The cutoffs for many law courses are low enough that all you need to be is not a retard to qualify based on the UAI alone. I'm sure a tafe student could hold their own in a social situation so why shouldn't they take the place of a socially inept law student?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

The cutoffs for many law courses are low enough that all you need to be is not a retard to qualify based on the UAI alone.

Anyone who gets under 99 is a retard?

EDIT: UWS doesn't count

 

[AsyLum]

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.

No. Absolutely wrong.

The reason UAIs are at their levels is because the people who want to get into them filled the quota, and the last person's UAI to fill that quota is the UAI cutoff.

Nothing less, nothing more. To attribute UAI as a measure to coursework or otherwise is simply naivety or ignorance. The UAI is a measue of quota and popularity, not a measure of the coursework or quality. You can make an argument to say the higher the UAI the better the standards, but lets put it this way, if for some unknown reason B Basketweaving had a quota of 100 people, and for some unknown reason all the people from James Ruse who scored 99+ enrolled, and the 100th person's UAI was 99.95, then the cutoff would be 99.95. Does that mean its more challenging or difficult than any other course? The UAI won't tell you that.

 

[Anonymou5]

CG - I'm sure you could come up with many unis which have much lower UAI requirements than 99 for law.

No. Absolutely wrong.

The reason UAIs are at their levels is because the people who want to get into them filled the quota, and the last person's UAI to fill that quota is the UAI cutoff.

Nothing less, nothing more. To attribute UAI as a measure to coursework or otherwise is simply naivety or ignorance. The UAI is a measue of quota and popularity, not a measure of the coursework or quality. You can make an argument to say the higher the UAI the better the standards, but lets put it this way, if for some unknown reason B Basketweaving had a quota of 100 people, and for some unknown reason all the people from James Ruse who scored 99+ enrolled, and the 100th person's UAI was 99.95, then the cutoff would be 99.95. Does that mean its more challenging or difficult than any other course? The UAI won't tell you that.

You're as ignorant and unable to read as you have always been, little man. 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. There was no comparison across courses and their associated 'quality', retard.

 

[dissipate]

Mostly Creative Arts programs where you have to prove your passion and that you have some background in it.

I don't see why it shouldn't be done for the top demand courses.

i feel that this should be done for all courses especially top demand courses. it's nauseating how majority of the medicine and law students are only taking those courses because "it's prestigious" and "it pays well".

 

[AsyLum]

CG - I'm sure you could come up with many unis which have much lower UAI requirements than 99 for law.



You're as ignorant and unable to read as you have always been, little man. 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. There was no comparison across courses and their associated 'quality', retard.

The best that are 'preferred' reflect on your UNI marks, not on your UAI.

Last time I checked, you graduated and passed university courses, and received the qualifications based on your university mark.

So please tell me where this idea of a 'high UAI' automatically translates to best in job ?

The point is, a lot of people pick courses because they 'don't want to waste' their UAI, rather than they being the 'best person' for the job. And while the UAI may provide an indicator for their aptitude, to suggest high UAI = perfect for the job is just ignorant.

Please enlighten me where I'm wrong here.

edit:

Wait wtf are you trying to say, that the best are preferred for courses, and that such degrees like USYD Law entry is controlled by the university?

Rofl.

Fuck no.

 

[Anonymou5]

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

The best that are 'preferred' reflect on your UNI marks, not on your UAI.

Last time I checked, you graduated and passed university courses, and received the qualifications based on your university mark.

So please tell me where this idea of a 'high UAI' automatically translates to best in job ?

The point is, a lot of people pick courses because they 'don't want to waste' their UAI, rather than they being the 'best person' for the job. And while the UAI may provide an indicator for their aptitude, to suggest high UAI = perfect for the job is just ignorant.

Please enlighten me where I'm wrong here.

edit:

Wait wtf are you trying to say, that the best are preferred for courses, and that such degrees like USYD Law entry is controlled by the university?

Rofl.

Fuck no.

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.