Petition - ATAR Should Not Affect University Options (1 Viewer)

[enoilgam]

That kind of just leaves it with like Med & Law though that would effectively utilize the interview. I can't see why a generalist degree such as Business/Commerce, for example, would/should have interviews - I mean it's no secret that the market is tough but the degree itself does not require students of any particular ingenuity to complete or to complete well.

Sadly I agree with this - Law might not have a high cut-off, but it is definitely a difficult degree and way more intense than Commerce. I definitely think that Law would benefit from interviews. Notre Dame does interviews for all subjects, but unfortunately they are really just a formality, because the uni isnt really in a position to discriminate when it comes to students.

 

[Fiction]

Completely disagree with this post.

How is english 'scientific'? Without an explanation thats a ridiculous statement. Its like me saying science is english.

You're hung up on HSC Science being useless and just regurgitation of facts (like HSC isnt regurgitating essays?) when its also a lot of applying the facts that you know. Its a crazy stereotype to say science is just regurgitating facts. How does year 11 and 12 english better our society? If anything year 11 and 12 science is more helpful because it gives you skills to help you pursue a science degree, which has a lot more practical application to 'bettering' of society, to use your own term.

We live in an age where everything around is science or engineering and this will only get bigger and more influential. Its been spoken about a boom in biotechnology job sector in the next 20 or so years. Surely its in our interests to be equipping students with attributes that will help them in this way.

Id say people do a lot more regurgitating in essays where as theres not as much regurgitation in science. Youve got to study concepts to understand them so you can apply them.

The idea I originally proposed was not 2 mandatory english 2 mandatory maths and 2 mandatory science, just 2 english and 2 science units. HSC should be equipping people with a range of skills and not close off any options to students. HSC graduates should be more well rounded and be able to do english and a science/math. Year 10 level science is still not really science and very basic. That said even at the end of year 12 theres not enough understanding of science taught

lol argueably science is english, at least in AUstralia it is. What do you think you're reading in that science text book buddy? Martian?

Before you feel the urge to rebut into an argument at least get your facts straight. My argument for year 11 and 12 science as not bettering our society was in the context of a fellow bos'ers words that somehow yr 11 and 12 science will be "making a substantial societal contribtion". You're assuming that every individual would want to pursure a science degree. I hate to break your bubble but unfortunately a science degree isn't everyone's dream course c: It's not in our best interests to force students to be equipped with knowledge that potentially takes time out of their busy lives which they don't care about. I can agree that fundalmental maths and science is useful aka junior school or general maths, but forcing someone to love science, to prioritise a science degree over everything else, is not only plain arrogant but incredibly naive. btw that " bettering' of society, isn't my term, but hey I'll take it.

Yeah, but we live in a post-modern age, that is, where values and ideology are constantl being challenged and subverted. I won't insult your intelligence by explaining the importance of critical, analytical and logical thinking as well as a clear idea of communication and essay/argument structures in such an age Don't forget, scientific inventions/discoveries aren't the only occurances in our world today.

Yeah, you've got to study concept in order to gain an understanding in every subject. Not just english nor science alone. Hence your argument ath science is oh so better than english in terms of regurgitation is null.

I have never mentioned HSC science is useless - for heavens sake, I take chemistry and biology e.e, I'm just saying that if you mandate english and science and as a few fellow bos'ers seem to be saying, maths as well, that's a lot of time and subjects that are pre-determined for a student, which may overall affect their atar because they are not doing a subject they enjoy. It's well and good for students who were originally planning to take math and science anyways, but think of the art/language/humanities based kids. Some of them legit don't even want to go near science for their HSC and prelim years. Some of them think they have a better chance of doing well in humanities than science, even if they may enjoy the subject.

To deny a student of opporunities to chase subjects that potentially may help them decide their future career is just rude.

And so far, in my eyes, your argument has not shown nor convinced me that science should be mandated over english.

 

[Fiction]

The idea I originally proposed was not 2 mandatory english 2 mandatory maths and 2 mandatory science, just 2 english and 2 science units. HSC should be equipping people with a range of skills and not close off any options to students. HSC graduates should be more well rounded and be able to do english and a science/math. Year 10 level science is still not really science and very basic. That said even at the end of year 12 theres not enough understanding of science taught

Agreed with D94. I say why not just change the junior school course particularly since goldfish has mentioned that year 10 science is still not really science. Most kids are just bludging year 7-10 anyways. Saves the argument of mandating HSC subjects and taking up extra units.

 

[nerdasdasd]

The idea I originally proposed was not 2 mandatory english 2 mandatory maths and 2 mandatory science, just 2 english and 2 science units. HSC should be equipping people with a range of skills and not close off any options to students. HSC graduates should be more well rounded and be able to do english and a science/math. Year 10 level science is still not really science and very basic. That said even at the end of year 12 theres not enough understanding of science taught

How preposterous. Not everyone wants to do something science or math related.

I would say that it should be a prerequisite for science or math degrees only.

 

[nerdasdasd]

I think that all HSC and (or) prelim subjects should reflect some of the difficulty of university degrees. They should have some first year university content.

In the current system, the content is so out of date and sometimes irrelevant to uni degrees.

 

[isildurrrr1]

what about something that is ATAR+inteview?

Ivy leagues have interviews. But it's just quite hard to set it up. Interview weighting is almost negligible when it comes to actual admissions. They don't necessarily interview all applicants, only the ones that have a "chance" of getting in.

As someone brought up about EC, well in the US they take into family income and background into account. If you're poor and grown up with abuse, the tears of the admission officer would let you in. I have a friend who worked in Admissions at Ithaca College, he pretty much admitted to me in his words "I'd let a minority kid in even with less grades over a privilege white kid." There's a lot of discrepencies. I know people who got rejected by lesser uni's like UC Irvine and University of Washington and got into University of Pennsylvania... top. lel. They don't have a priority system in the US, so you actually get to choose what courses you're admitted to.

Pretty much if you're poor and have a shitty family and have academic success', you have a better chance of getting into uni than a white kid with a ton of EC's. My black friend got into SUNY Albany with shitty grades pretty much coz she was black, first gen immigrant and female, despite her dad pulling 500k a year working for Corning.

Rumble: interviews do happen for Med under UMAT from what i've heard, not too sure on it though.

ATAR and HSC is an imperfect system, but it's better than what the rest of the world has. I still think IB is superior based on level of content alone, but I'd never put my kid through IB lol.

 

[isildurrrr1]

How preposterous. Not everyone wants to do something science or math related.

I would say that it should be a prerequisite for science or math degrees only.

You still need BASIC math or science to balance everything out. in the US you need 3 years of math, science and humanities credit to graduate. English is 4 credits so you need to take it every year.

 

[FlourishingFlower]

Great petition.

I certainly agree. I think education should be less restrictive and open to more people, rather than arbitrarily cutting off admissions at a certain ATAR.

My view for change is this:

Make it so that:

1. Remove ATAR cut-offs, and do admissions based on individual personal statements.
2. For those with high ATARs (who are from a poor financial background), make them do personal statements and take into account their ATAR and poor financial factor in considering whether to admit them.
3. ATAR should be a factor, but not the only factor, and definitely not the most significant one. It should not be a simple cut-off as it stands right now.

 

[brent012]

I think cutoffs are good, like isildurrrr said it makes the admission process relatively transparent. If you start including interviews and what not in all courses it just encourages discrimination.

I think all the bonus point schemes should be banned, and EAS reconsidered - they all started with good intentions but now are either used to inflate cut offs or exploited by people who should never be eligible for it. I also think a non rote-able component should make up a sizeable chunk of your ATAR (~25%), something like an aptitude test.

 

[isildurrrr1]

Great petition.

I certainly agree. I think education should be less restrictive and open to more people, rather than arbitrarily cutting off admissions at a certain ATAR.

My view for change is this:

Make it so that:

1. Remove ATAR cut-offs, and do admissions based on individual personal statements.
2. For those with high ATARs (who are from a poor financial background), make them do personal statements and take into account their ATAR and poor financial factor in considering whether to admit them.
3. ATAR should be a factor, but not the only factor, and definitely not the most significant one. It should not be a simple cut-off as it stands right now.

You should read my posts and understand why it's a bad idea. You just encourage kids from wealthy backgrounds to blow money on people to write personal statements for them, or even get help to edit them really well.

Uni's are blatantly racist in America too

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...sian-students-college-applications/51620236/1

US uni's have a fucking HARD ON for diversity. It's pracitcally in ALL uni's they boast about how diverse they are. It's pretty retarded.

http://diversity.cornell.edu/

I think that's all the black kids in Cornell in that photo.

 

[Crobat]

You still need BASIC math or science to balance everything out. in the US you need 3 years of math, science and humanities credit to graduate. English is 4 credits so you need to take it every year.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this model of high school graduation.

I think cutoffs are good, like isildurrrr said it makes the admission process relatively transparent. If you start including interviews and what not in all courses it just encourages discrimination.

I think all the bonus point schemes should be banned, and EAS reconsidered - they all started with good intentions but now are either used to inflate cut offs or exploited by people who should never be eligible for it. I also think a non rote-able component should make up a sizeable chunk of your ATAR (~25%), something like an aptitude test.

I agree with these - but EAS I think should stay. Considering that students coming from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face poorer educational systems and have more difficulty accessing tertiary education as a result, it's one of the few ways equality of education can be encouraged.

 

[brent012]

I agree with these - but EAS I think should stay. Considering that students coming from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face poorer educational systems and have more difficulty accessing tertiary education as a result, it's one of the few ways equality of education can be encouraged.

I don't think it should be entirely removed, but the implementation needs to be reconsidered. Students at private schools for example, should probably not be eligible for being from lower socioeconomic areas. The amount the parents would spend on their kids schooling in year 11/12 alone would have been sufficient for all the resources you'd ever need and more tutoring/whatever than the average student in a well off area would get.

US uni's have a fucking HARD ON for diversity. It's pracitcally in ALL uni's they boast about how diverse they are. It's pretty retarded.

http://diversity.cornell.edu/

I think that's all the black kids in Cornell in that photo.

Haha geez, looks like someone thought "Lets take photos of a bunch of Asian and African American female student/staffs to demonstrate how diverse we are" at some point.

 

[buriza]

lol argueably science is english, at least in AUstralia it is. What do you think you're reading in that science text book buddy? Martian?

Before you feel the urge to rebut into an argument at least get your facts straight. My argument for year 11 and 12 science as not bettering our society was in the context of a fellow bos'ers words that somehow yr 11 and 12 science will be "making a substantial societal contribtion". You're assuming that every individual would want to pursure a science degree. I hate to break your bubble but unfortunately a science degree isn't everyone's dream course c: It's not in our best interests to force students to be equipped with knowledge that potentially takes time out of their busy lives which they don't care about. I can agree that fundalmental maths and science is useful aka junior school or general maths, but forcing someone to love science, to prioritise a science degree over everything else, is not only plain arrogant but incredibly naive. btw that " bettering' of society, isn't my term, but hey I'll take it.

Yeah, but we live in a post-modern age, that is, where values and ideology are constantl being challenged and subverted. I won't insult your intelligence by explaining the importance of critical, analytical and logical thinking as well as a clear idea of communication and essay/argument structures in such an age Don't forget, scientific inventions/discoveries aren't the only occurances in our world today.

Yeah, you've got to study concept in order to gain an understanding in every subject. Not just english nor science alone. Hence your argument ath science is oh so better than english in terms of regurgitation is null.

I have never mentioned HSC science is useless - for heavens sake, I take chemistry and biology e.e, I'm just saying that if you mandate english and science and as a few fellow bos'ers seem to be saying, maths as well, that's a lot of time and subjects that are pre-determined for a student, which may overall affect their atar because they are not doing a subject they enjoy. It's well and good for students who were originally planning to take math and science anyways, but think of the art/language/humanities based kids. Some of them legit don't even want to go near science for their HSC and prelim years. Some of them think they have a better chance of doing well in humanities than science, even if they may enjoy the subject.

To deny a student of opporunities to chase subjects that potentially may help them decide their future career is just rude.

And so far, in my eyes, your argument has not shown nor convinced me that science should be mandated over english.

But what about the students that are better in mathematics or science and are obliged to do english? If I have gathered anything about your arguments on this thread, it is that 1. you are ignorant to the aforementioned individuals and 2. you appear to have an inaccurate view of english in the senior years, or at least, exaggerate its general usefulness.

It is as if you have been trying to argue that english in the senior years explicitly focuses on fundamental skills like punctuation, grammar and how to write academic essays suitable to all fields. Except it doesn't. It focuses far more on how an individual personally interprets a text. It's got a lot to do with creative thinking, but can hardly compare in logical thinking when it comes to mathematics or science.

The question is this: how useful really is english to an individual who is simply not interested or whose career path has very little to do with english? I believe that instead of arguing solely from your point of view you need to start thinking about how other individuals might be feeling about english. A lot of individuals out there just regurgitate what content their english teacher has given them and memorise some generic essay that they hope can be applied to the question they're asked.

The reality is, their experiences would be similar to the experiences artsy students would have if they were obliged to do mathematics or science. What I can't understand is that you seem to be able to sympathise with the hypothetical situation of artsy students doing mathematics or science, yet you can't sympathise with the actual situation of mathematical or scientific students doing english.

tl;dr if you can understand why mandating mathematics or science isn't that great, then you should understand why the current mandating of english isn't that great either.

And here's the evidence for implying what I have from your posts:

Using the right language, and knowing how to use the right language is used occupations along with various other knowledge/fields. E.g, councellors, other medical fields that treat mental disorders. You can't just claim that language is complete bs, that science and maths oh so betters our society etc, because may I ask you, how does year 11 and 12 maths and science better our society? University english is apparently nothing like HSC english, your argument is based upon university maths and science, therefore not plausible. To argue so would also be to completely disregard professions such as philosophers who ponder and write essays, not experiments, essays.

You do art, I'm surprised you haven't done an essay on "what is art and it's function" yet. If you have, then those literary texts which may seem like mere entertainment for you is actually vital in our society. And I don't just mean by capalitistic/profitable means.

I'm simply saying that if any one subject were to be mandated, eng would prolly be the best option. Based off your argument, maths should be mandatory because it was taught since kindy. The average person speaks like, at least 6 hours a day? The average person works on how many math questions a day?

1. Knowing how to use the right language is really not the centre of english in the senior years. You have to interpret texts before you start using the right language. Students who lack creative ability may not be able to interpret literature well or find passion for literature in the first place. Regardless, language in english is very narrow. It's literary language that centres on literary techniques. How exactly is this relevant when I am writing some essay for psychology in university? Also, if one wants to become a counsellor, they require knowledge in statistics and biology far more than they require english.

2. I don't really know why you're arguing that senior science doesn't better our society. Obviously no subject in high school directly benefits society in the sense of immediately producing occupations. By the way, it becomes apparent that bettering our society is your term, since you just used it.

3. Yes and there are professions like scientists that ponder on experiments, not essays.

4. Everyone has a different role in society. If an individual wants to recognise the importance of literature, good for them. But not everyone has to do this.

5. What has talking six hours a day have anything to do with english? If having done four units of english helps my verbal clarity, then I have missed some benefit that english is apparently meant to have. I believe you mean drama.

Dat sarcasm 8D
True, but I could also argue that english reinforces critical and logical thinking and while science does the same, english also has a vital communication factor.
I agree the sciences are important in society, and will become more important, but I don't think mandating them would be all too great. WHile everyone has been exposed to english since like kindie, science only really is introduced to kids in like the latter half of primary to high school. Some kids are going to be SO bad at it whileas the average kid should be at least somewhat comfortable with english already. Also, eng has like ESL, standard and advanced, to make science or math mandatory you would need to have some more basic-ish courses for those who will struggle.

Not really, the education system aims to produce wellbalanced students up until senior years, which is argueably when you're saying science should become mandatory. SEnior years = start to specialise in courses.

1. Once again, this "vital communication factor" is only useful for individuals who will spend the majority of their degrees in university doing artsy units like english or philosophy. Otherwise it doesn't help much at all. It's only a "vital communication factor" applied on paper. It doesn't make you more socially adept or something, so I could argue it isn't "vital" at all. Most communication is verbal in a social context.

 

[enoilgam]

I think that all HSC and (or) prelim subjects should reflect some of the difficulty of university degrees. They should have some first year university content.

In the current system, the content is so out of date and sometimes irrelevant to uni degrees.

The thing is, the HSC has to cater for all students including the large percentage who dont go to uni. As I said before, the HSC needs to be balanced and I think it achieves this quite well. A lot of people do find the HSC difficult and by making some courses harder, you are going to discourage certain people from doing them. Even though people dont want to go to uni, they may still want to study science courses or humanities courses - if they are too difficult, then these type of people arent really going to bother with them. So by making things more difficult, you are going to reduce the options for a lot of people and potentially reduce the quality of education they receive.

In saying that, I am not against overhauling some courses - for example, I think the sciences should cut out their society based content. Science courses should be focused on science, not stuff like "What impact did X development have on the world". Likewise, I think Legal Studies could benefit from the addition of a uni like law section just to prevent it from being a waste of time rote-fest (i.e. maybe statutory interpretation or a problem question for crime).

Overall, the point I'm trying to make is that there needs to be balance. We cant go off making HSC courses like uni courses because we have to cater for everyone - not just the high achievers. Uni courses are difficult and out of reach for quite a few students (maybe not so much in this day and age, but that's the theory) - hence why it should remain distinct from secondary education.

 

[isildurrrr1]

It is as if you have been trying to argue that english in the senior years explicitly focuses on fundamental skills like punctuation, grammar and how to write academic essays suitable to all fields. Except it doesn't. It focuses far more on how an individual personally interprets a text. It's got a lot to do with creative thinking, but can hardly compare in logical thinking when it comes to mathematics or science.

The question is this: how useful really is english to an individual who is simply not interested or whose career path has very little to do with english? I believe that instead of arguing solely from your point of view you need to start thinking about how other individuals might be feeling about english. A lot of individuals out there just regurgitate what content their english teacher has given them and memorise some generic essay that they hope can be applied to the question they're asked.

1. Knowing how to use the right language is really not the centre of english in the senior years. You have to interpret texts before you start using the right language. Students who lack creative ability may not be able to interpret literature well or find passion for literature in the first place. Regardless, language in english is very narrow. It's literary language that centres on literary techniques. How exactly is this relevant when I am writing some essay for psychology in university? Also, if one wants to become a counsellor, they require knowledge in statistics and biology far more than they require english.

This is why English language courses shouldn't just be about reading literature. There's MUCH MUCH MUCH more towards English. Course I took was AP Language and composition, which is pretty much about rhetoric and looking at how people use rhetoric to further their arguments. You learn much more how to use language towards your advantage in writing. It helped me so much for every single uni subject (coz everything is essays lol). That's what English should be about, it should be more general in teaching the skills of argument writing, speeches etc.

 

[buriza]

This is why English language courses shouldn't just be about reading literature. There's MUCH MUCH MUCH more towards English. Course I took was AP Language and composition, which is pretty much about rhetoric and looking at how people use rhetoric to further their arguments. You learn much more how to use language towards your advantage in writing. It helped me so much for every single uni subject (coz everything is essays lol). That's what English should be about, it should be more general in teaching the skills of argument writing, speeches etc.

I completely agree. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed doing english in years 11 and 12, but I still feel it had too much focus on reading literature. Additionally, it's not like there aren't other subjects in years 11 and 12 that build on essay writing; in fact at times I found my history subjects far more effective in that area. So as for english in years 11 and 12 apparently being able to enhance the general fundamental skills you have mentioned, frankly I don't think it succeeds.

 

[Crobat]

1. Once again, this "vital communication factor" is only useful for individuals who will spend the majority of their degrees in university doing artsy units like english or philosophy. Otherwise it doesn't help much at all. It's only a "vital communication factor" applied on paper. It doesn't make you more socially adept or something, so I could argue it isn't "vital" at all. Most communication is verbal in a social context.

The thing is, career progression into the higher levels of management for example depend on your communication ability in all disciplines because effective communication is at the crux of strong leadership. That's why communication is the most sought after skill in graduates - What Employers Want.

This is why English language courses shouldn't just be about reading literature. There's MUCH MUCH MUCH more towards English. Course I took was AP Language and composition, which is pretty much about rhetoric and looking at how people use rhetoric to further their arguments. You learn much more how to use language towards your advantage in writing. It helped me so much for every single uni subject (coz everything is essays lol). That's what English should be about, it should be more general in teaching the skills of argument writing, speeches etc.

This is exactly the benefit of English that is trying to be encouraged and developed but has been essentially lost in the way the current syllabus sets out the course.

From what I can gather, "Americanisation" of our of high school system can only be a good thing.

 

[buriza]

The thing is, career progression into the higher levels of management for example depend on your communication ability in all disciplines because effective communication is at the crux of strong leadership. That's why communication is the most sought after skill in graduates - What Employers Want.

This is exactly the benefit of English that is trying to be encouraged and developed but has been essentially lost in the way the current syllabus sets out the course.

From what I can gather, "Americanisation" of our of high school system can only be a good thing.

Of course, I am not attempting to argue that the current benefits of english are completely redundant. Like you have said, I am more expressing that the current benefits of english are certainly not exemplary, nor are they particularly superior to the current benefits offered by other subjects in years 11 and 12. I just feel that some people get caught up in what english is meant to be and that's all fine and dandy, except that's not what english actually is in years 11 and 12. Not to mention that being good at english could also contribute to this bias, that is, not understanding how english could not always be helpful for the general population.

 

[JohnMaximus]

lmao
people don't know how good we got it in Aus



brb only need to score in the top 20%ile to get a guaranteed place at the best uni in the southern hemisphere and the government covers your fees too






brb americans gotta bust their ass and submit applications with extra-curriculars and demonstrate their character in who knows how many ways just to have a good chance at getting into a decent college, so they can bust their asses for 4 more years to pull a good GPA, so they can finally get into grad school

 

[isildurrrr1]

lmao
people don't know how good we got it in Aus



brb only need to score in the top 20%ile to get a guaranteed place at the best uni in the southern hemisphere and the government covers your fees too






brb americans gotta bust their ass and submit applications with extra-curriculars and demonstrate their character in who knows how many ways just to have a good chance at getting into a decent college, so they can bust their asses for 4 more years to pull a good GPA, so they can finally get into grad school

And have fun with living with the wrong state and have shitty uni's, shelling out 100k+ on tuition and board lol. This is way to uni success in America: Born black, live in shitty area, be in a single parent family, have drug issues in family, have good gpa, do high school sports, write about how shitty your life is. Uni admin officers get a hard on and give you scholarships. fucking win.

Crobat: Remember, the course I did was AP or Advanced Placement which is uni level coursework, otherwise it's the same bullshit system of literature and debating "what did the author mean." English education needs a serious overhaul and I think students should choose what they would want to read as well and write reports on it. The only thing the Americanization should entail is having people taking x amount of science, maths and humanities courses so they can have an adaptable skill across all areas. I still really like Australia's system of uni entrance, your score is over X amount you're good to go. No need to bullshit around university admission process.

Buriza: How the hell is not having a well spoken population not good for the general public? That's like saying "oh we shouldn't make people do these courses at high school coz they might not use it." It's just utter ignorance that sets back a society. Having strong communication skill is highly beneficial as language itself can help you communicate through multiple subjects.