Search results

The story they really should have done should have been about the way universities artificially adjust cut-off scores (all universities), which they have been doing for a long time, and how often the places for those particular degrees are filled with people above that cut-off. They should have...

Oh no doubt. This is the trashiest article I've seen in a while from SMH. The amount of rubbish in it is astounding. They need to get their facts straight. And the whole "crisis" rhetoric is very disappointing.

As I said: English and maths results are good indicators. Much better indicators than some random assortment of subjects which produce a UAI. Imagine the person who gets a UAI of 95 but did Biology, Chemistry, PE, Art, Religion, Design & Tech, Music. Using the UAI to assess the person's...

Yes. But people don't seem to realise that this has been going on for some time. All universities adjust and set artificial cut-offs. This is nothing new to UNSW or other institutions. Perhaps it could have been made more explicit. However, considering it pertains only to those who did not make...

Yes. No, it just means that they set an artificial cut-off and hope that it fills up. If it doesn't (as it has not this time, apparently), then they look to these factors.

Well done! :)

Once again, for the people who cannot read: the university is only looking at subject results for English and maths if you do not meet the cut-off requirement. It is not a general filter. Anyone who actually makes the cut-off requirement will get in.

I mean, good on them for winning. But yes... it was not really too competitive last year.

Ah, LexisNexis. The thing is, they actually held the LexisNexis Constitutional Law Moot at the exact same time as the (more prestigious) National Sir Harry Gibbs Constitutional Law Moot in 2006. Basically over the same 4-5 days or so. So much of the pool of mooters was drawn away to Gibbs.

"The moot"? Just to let you know, there are many, many mooting competitions - both national and international. There is not one single mooting competition to be won.

A friend of mine used to joke that if you find yourself in a class without any Asians in it, you're in trouble.

Once again, for the people who cannot read: the university is only looking at subject results for English and maths if you do not meet the cut-off requirement. It is not a general filter. Anyone who actually makes the cut-off requirement will get in. And it is not absurd to use the subject...

I didn't say she lied about that.

The article's rubbish. See this thread.

No offence intended, but your claims can hardly be verified, can they? There may be other factors which we are unaware of (or that you are unaware of). One could imagine a situation where, again no offence intended to you or your friend, a person is not honest about their entry method.

As law moderator, in the interests of not misleading other students, I must correct you there. Your statement is incorrect. And even if it were correct, no-one has any way of knowing because you have not given any evidence of any rankings that can be verified, nor any reasoning behind your...

You don't seem to realise that most universities manipulate their UAI cut-offs, to a greater or lesser extent, for a range of courses. They have been doing so for many years. And for goodness sake, would people stop making the general statement that there is "hidden criterion" as if it...

The university is most qualified to select people whom they think will be most fitting to their courses and they should have every right to do so. So in my opinion it is a much more sensible system for "next best" candidates. It's like all those people who do 4U maths, Chemistry, Physics...

Pick up your UAC guide --

That article is complete rubbish. "THE universities admissions index system is in crisis" -- what a joke! Talk about media agenda. I can't believe SMH would write something so politically motivated without classing it under opinion. No-one has been denied a place for being higher than the...