ATAR 'devalued by use of bonus point schemes' (2 Viewers)

[iwannaacetheHSC]

The reason bonus points work is that a student may not do well in an HSC subject that is completely unrelated to a uni course, which in turn drags the atar down. Therefore, the guy doesnt make it into the course. For e.g. a person might be 2 points below the unsw commerce cut off because of a poor performance in chemistry, yet the guy performs well in math, eng, eco etc. It's kind of horses for courses type of thing

 

[LoveHateSchool]

I don't think the US system works well in reality even though it aims to look more at the person all around-and the fact it considers things like legacy is elitist.

I don't think the ATAR is devalued by the bonus points scheme though I think they use them a bit liberally to keep inflated course cut offs. Like at many institutions, the amount of bonus points I get in subjects is quite generous and would push my ATAR over the maximum. I like their purpose though-if someone wants to be an engineer how they do in physics probs matters over their ATAR with eng included. The Elite Performer/Athlete's Scheme is an interesting-I am not sure what the specifications are on it and if it is equally recognising of a plethora of sports/performing arts. I understand how the AAA is seen as the "get in UNSW law" with a 94.65, it's pretty crazy when it's often given to not the top person with the intent of doing that or scraping them into a course.

And lol I think interviews and personal essays are great reflections on people, I don't buy into this total mark=course (think med with interviews, architecture with portfolios etc.) I'm surprised more courses aren't tailored in admissions to help bring in people good for the industry.

I think it's a little narrowminded of some above OPs to bag on EAS people. Some people go through great trauma through their HSC year and deserve EAS so much. There's also geographical disadvantage, financial etc. You probably had a whole land of opportunity many in the state cannot afford. I personally got automatic EAS (geographical location/school even though I don't think I'm really that isolated...), but I don't need the points-but I think Sydney siders are necessarily cognitive of how geographical factors can be a disadvantage. Though, I think it's pretty crazy when like people live 40 mins out of Syd and that's EAS worthy lol. And I also know that some people may rort the system, but I know of many cases in from my school where EAS was absolutely 100% no way could you doubt the merit in awarding it to the person.

 

[golgo13]

But i believe living in a geographical location wasn't exactly apply-able unless you moved there in yr11 or yr10. But to some degree many people don't really need EAS even tho they have it. It becomes more of a reassurance thing that "i have EAS it should push me over the line if i'm just under." At the end of the day you won't be able to tell if the EAS was the reason you got in or the quota wasn't met or even if it was a combination of the 2

 

[ncoul]

My opinion is solely based around law; whilst I maintain that I don't mean to offend anyone here.

I have an alternate view. Law is a vocationally savvy subject, requiring proficient communication skills in any medium, and it is these communication skills that are primarily applied to humanities subjects in the HSC. However, the majority of students attaining these inflated ATARs, for both Sydney and UNSW law, completed a science and maths oriented HSC, with the goal being much more realistic with these subject combinations. Now how is that equitable? I know I'd be a much better lawyer or law student than the reclusive Asian who did Adv/Ext.2 Maths/Phy/Chem. This puts UNSW's scheme in perspective; and although the 5 bonus points, of which I personally deem as excessive, do seem to undermine the repute of the course, it's somewhat justified.

In saying this, I have 2 friends from 2010 that did purely humanities subjects, attaining 99.95 each - both of which achieved 4+ state rankings.

 

[bladeys]

My opinion is solely based around law; whilst I maintain that I don't mean to offend anyone here.

I have an alternate view. Law is a vocationally savvy subject, requiring proficient communication skills in any medium, and it is these communication skills that are primarily applied to humanities subjects in the HSC. However, the majority of students attaining these inflated ATARs, for both Sydney and UNSW law, completed a science and maths oriented HSC, with the goal being much more realistic with these subject combinations. Now how is that equitable? I know I'd be a much better lawyer or law student than the reclusive Asian who did Adv/Ext.2 Maths/Phy/Chem. This puts UNSW's scheme in perspective; and although the 5 bonus points, of which I personally deem as excessive, do seem to undermine the repute of the course, it's somewhat justified.

In saying this, I have 2 friends from 2010 that did purely humanities subjects, attaining 99.95 each - both of which achieved 4+ state rankings.

What exactly makes you think you'd be a 'much better' law or lawyer than those you achieved 99.65+ ATARs? Don't kid yourself, History, English don't correlate to university law either. Also nice job stereotyping those people as 'reclusive asians'. ATAR is merely a rank and although people 'do better' with maths and science subjects this doesn't mean ATARs are unfairly biased. A good student will get a good ATAR regardless of their subjects (some withstanding of course ie. General Maths, Standard English). Come back and talk when you've been through 3 years of law, if you get in of course.

In my opinion bonus points are kind of a joke. Especially the AAA scholarship which might be the worst of all since it applies to law which doesn't allow other bonus points besides EAS and sport. In what world is it fair someone with 99.5 misses out while someone who achieves 94.65 gets in. Maybe 1 or 2 bonus points but 5 is certainly too many. The difference between 99.5 and 94.65 is huge.

 

[golgo13]

I don't think it's stereotyping but different subjects develop different skill sets, like take maths for exam it develops ability to problem solve that there is more than one way of looking at a problem esp in 4u, that is quite relevant to an engineering field where they deal with problems and trying to find a solution all the time. History and english may not correlate as well but they develop skills to build logical and coherent arguments. However bonus marks in higher tier courses should be evaluated carefully, as i do agree it will come off unfair if the person with 99.5 misses out and the 94.65 gets in, but i do believe usyd puts a quota on how many can get in through bonus marks, not sure about unsw.

 

[twinklegal19]

I don't think it's stereotyping but different subjects develop different skill sets, like take maths for exam it develops ability to problem solve that there is more than one way of looking at a problem esp in 4u, that is quite relevant to an engineering field where they deal with problems and trying to find a solution all the time. History and english may not correlate as well but they develop skills to build logical and coherent arguments. However bonus marks in higher tier courses should be evaluated carefully, as i do agree it will come off unfair if the person with 99.5 misses out and the 94.65 gets in, but i do believe usyd puts a quota on how many can get in through bonus marks, not sure about unsw.

.

 

[bladeys]

You know problem solving is critical to law right? Let's not forget everyone takes English. Let's not forget that those 'maths and science nerds' who get 99.65+ also need band 6's in english to do as well as they do. Quota's are probably a good idea.

 

[VIPPER]

meh - year 12 is a complete joke anyway. i see plenty of retards (both socially and intellectually) at my uni. can't believe some of them got into a 94.XX atar course.

 

[golgo13]

It was just an example, i'm not saying it in specifics but more of the idea unsw runs for bonus ATAR points is not exactly stupid because people are running of the idea the subject is kinda redundant, but i'm trying saying that the skills form those sets of subjects are seen relevant.
@twinklegal19, i believe that is kind of bias...., unless you have a statement for emphasis

 

[twinklegal19]

It was just an example, i'm not saying it in specifics but more of the idea unsw runs for bonus ATAR points is not exactly stupid because people are running of the idea the subject is kinda redundant, but i'm trying saying that the skills form those sets of subjects are seen relevant.
@twinklegal19, i believe that is kind of bias...., unless you have a statement for emphasis

couldn't be bothered to type out "+1" lol

 

[ncoul]

What exactly makes you think you'd be a 'much better' law or lawyer than those you achieved 99.65+ ATARs? Don't kid yourself, History, English don't correlate to university law either. Also nice job stereotyping those people as 'reclusive asians'. ATAR is merely a rank and although people 'do better' with maths and science subjects this doesn't mean ATARs are unfairly biased. A good student will get a good ATAR regardless of their subjects (some withstanding of course ie. General Maths, Standard English). Come back and talk when you've been through 3 years of law, if you get in of course.

In my opinion bonus points are kind of a joke. Especially the AAA scholarship which might be the worst of all since it applies to law which doesn't allow other bonus points besides EAS and sport. In what world is it fair someone with 99.5 misses out while someone who achieves 94.65 gets in. Maybe 1 or 2 bonus points but 5 is certainly too many. The difference between 99.5 and 94.65 is huge.

Where did I say that at all in my post? You clearly can't identify what I'm saying.
Refer to my previous post.

 

[bladeys]

Where did I say that at all in my post? You clearly can't identify what I'm saying.
Refer to my previous post.

Right here. Emphasis added is mine.

My opinion is solely based around law; whilst I maintain that I don't mean to offend anyone here.

I have an alternate view. Law is a vocationally savvy subject, requiring proficient communication skills in any medium, and it is these communication skills that are primarily applied to humanities subjects in the HSC. However, the majority of students attaining these inflated ATARs, for both Sydney and UNSW law, completed a science and maths oriented HSC, with the goal being much more realistic with these subject combinations. Now how is that equitable? I know I'd be a much better lawyer or law student than the reclusive Asian who did Adv/Ext.2 Maths/Phy/Chem. This puts UNSW's scheme in perspective; and although the 5 bonus points, of which I personally deem as excessive, do seem to undermine the repute of the course, it's somewhat justified.

In saying this, I have 2 friends from 2010 that did purely humanities subjects, attaining 99.95 each - both of which achieved 4+ state rankings.

 

[ncoul]

Right here. Emphasis added is mine.

haha, a student who did the aforementioned subject combination - 3rd year law?

 

[bladeys]

haha, a student who did the aforementioned subject combination - 3rd year law?

What are you even saying? You got called out saying something you claimed you didn't. Just accept it and go study for your hsc.

 

[Omnipotence]

haha, a student who did the aforementioned subject combination - 3rd year law?

What are you on?

 

[inJust]

This thread is stupid...

 

[Trans4M]

I believe the EAS system does not devalue ATAR. I view it as a system that ensures disadvantaged students are not disadvantaged when it comes to getting into their desired course. I do not view it as an advantage. That said, the EAS system is pretty easy to abuse. If you have youth allowance you are pretty much eligible for this. Some students who do you get youth allowance are legitly financially disadvantaged. However, some people cheat the welfare system to get youth allowance by having parents faking that they are divorced, as a result receive EAS.

Regarding the issue of students taking Maths/Science subjects for HSC and getting into law. Law is not just about communicating. It involves problem solving. If you have a lawyer who can write amazing essays and speak eloquently but can't think on the spot, they are no better than a lawyer who can think on the spot but can't communicate. I find the ATAR system to get into Law is fair. If you are bright enough to get the required ATAR, you can do that regardless of what subjects you do (with a few exceptions).