"a higher uai suggests greater chance of succeeding at uni." (1 Viewer)

[BackCountrySnow]

UAI obviously has nothing to do with success. Most people I know with good UAIs end up selling hot dogs at KFC.

they sell hot dogs at kfc?

 

[Fat Fung]

the idea of UAI is just stupid...
smarty pants doesnt mean you are good at something...
they should not determine what you are capable with yer 'brain power' at skool....

of coz....ppl obtain a higher UAI are more likely to be smarter and faster in learning new areas of knowledge...but how much does uni courses (except courses with specific requiring knowledge such as medicine etc.) but i seriously dont think unis should purely pick out ppl with higher uai b4 they show they got an aptitude to the course

 

[wrong_turn]

but i seriously dont think unis should purely pick out ppl with higher uai b4 they show they got an aptitude to the course

then that decieves the whole purpose of doing the hsc. the hsc is meant to rank students in accordance to an academic system aimed to balance and scale all subjects to reduce biases.

those who earn their uai should be able to gain entry into any degree that their uai permits. they earned it, so they should be able to pick and choose for their effort. sure enough they may not have interest in it. and sure enough there is the common argument that they will choose a degree which matches their uai to "not waste" their uai. but why shouldnt they be able to do that?

 

[Bobness]

I don't really think there is any empirical way of correlating the statement, even though I am in general agreeance with it. No current statistical data exists which tracks the university performance of HSC students, which would allow us to make comparisons. And then there is the problem of relative course difficultness. However, the specific statement can not be answerd simply because at it's core it asks for subjective reasoning- there is no objective and thorough definition of 'success'. Perhaps as it was noted earlier, completion would be the better phrase.

Ignoring university, a debate which ive seen on here many a times before has been is there really any difference purely between intelligence and UAI's. Obviously, with 50 and 99 it is a better bet that the person has a harder work ethic etc and is MOST likely smarter. However, what about 97 and 99. If the person who got 99 just has a strong memory and aced say modern/ancient history ie HSC marks of 99 and maintained low 90's in other 'easier' subjects and the person who got 97 did 4 Unit maths, physics but didn't score as high, there is definately a chance that they can be more intelliget then the person who got 99.

Hence, as law is mentioned a lot. Law at UOW for eg has a cutoff of 90, with people getting on 87+. It is not uncommon that kids who are very strong at comprehension and writing and who have a UAI in high 80's can beat kids who scored 99, usually because the 99 kid lacks interest and may have trouble adjusting to the more 'free-thinking' approach as opposed to them choosing and aceing maths/physics subjecs but then choosing Law for the prestige.

To truley mesaure this, we would have to eliminate these outlying events and make the assumption that everyone is rational in their course selection, has perfect course knowledge and enters into the course they truly do preference over anyhing else (ignoring influences, prestige etc etc). That way, kids who were very bright and math aces would choose prob engineering and hence would not cause these discrepancies by entering say Law. This is all based on generalisation, but if two kids DID share the same academic interests, ie the 87 UAI kid above and now a 99 UAI kid who was also interested in written areas- aced 4 U English, History Extension, Modern, Legal, Latin etc etc then i think its fair to say the 99 UAI kid would fair better, on average, over the course of the tertiary cycle.

You shouldn't be doing law. Apart from some (i hope) glaring spelling 'typos' your grammar is found lacking.

Also does your 97uai vs 99uai come from a personal space of resentment? I know you scored 97.XX as our NSW uai and i think you make several essentialist and frankly misinformed judgments in your remark.

Firstly, modern and ancient history are not 'easier' subjects. I would argue that to score 99 in either subject (or both) would be much more difficult than scoring a 97 in extension two maths; yet in terms of 'scaling' the latter would count more towards your UAI (citation: the UAC documents).

Also, those students who are accomplished at mathematics should not be thought of as 'less worthy' than those who are accomplished at humanities in the context of law. Maths / science gurus generally possess strong logic which would be very beneficial when following certain legal arguments. Might i draw your attention to our current HCA CJ Robert French who was a BSci / LLB graduate from UWA?

Quod erat demonstratum.

***

In other news, KFunk wins thread.

Yeah they sell hot dogs at KFC (btw Omnidragon is just taking the piss).

 

[cannibal.horse]

You shouldn't be doing law. Apart from some (i hope) glaring spelling 'typos' your grammar is found lacking.).

Owtch

Also, those students who are accomplished at mathematics should not be thought of as 'less worthy' than those who are accomplished at humanities in the context of law. Maths / science gurus generally possess strong logic which would be very beneficial when following certain legal arguments. Might i draw your attention to our current HCA CJ Robert French who was a BSci / LLB graduate from UWA?

Is it really? I've had a look at some of my friend's law assignments (yes I'm sick) and they don't present as particually mathy, though certainly tedious.

I always took the 'maths helps with law' comment to be a misconception perpetuated by law students trying to justify why they put up with two years of extension maths

 

[uhawww]

You shouldn't be doing law. Apart from some (i hope) glaring spelling 'typos' your grammar is found lacking.

Also does your 97uai vs 99uai come from a personal space of resentment? I know you scored 97.XX as our NSW uai and i think you make several essentialist and frankly misinformed judgments in your remark.

Firstly, modern and ancient history are not 'easier' subjects. I would argue that to score 99 in either subject (or both) would be much more difficult than scoring a 97 in extension two maths; yet in terms of 'scaling' the latter would count more towards your UAI (citation: the UAC documents).

Also, those students who are accomplished at mathematics should not be thought of as 'less worthy' than those who are accomplished at humanities in the context of law. Maths / science gurus generally possess strong logic which would be very beneficial when following certain legal arguments. Might i draw your attention to our current HCA CJ Robert French who was a BSci / LLB graduate from UWA?

Quod erat demonstratum.

***

In other news, KFunk wins thread.

Yeah they sell hot dogs at KFC (btw Omnidragon is just taking the piss).

Learn to punctuation. Clearly someone sucks at English.












Nah fuck man I'm kidding, please don't shank me

 

[uhawww]

Owtch



Is it really? I've had a look at some of my friend's law assignments (yes I'm sick) and they don't present as particually mathy, though certainly tedious.

I always took the 'maths helps with law' comment to be a misconception perpetuated by law students trying to justify why they put up with two years of extension maths

He didn't say anything about law assignments being mathematical. He meant it in terms of critical thinking/logic.

 

[Bobness]

HAHAHA nah that's cool. I used backspace for the 'your' uai and it looks out of place now

However, it's quite common to use the lower case 'i' in formal internet correspondence. The guy has no refute now, though (since you picked it up first).

In other news, this uhawww character deserves to study law (even if he doesn't want to) more so than a cookie-cutter poster. His english is impeccable

 

[Captain Gh3y]

they sell hot dogs at kfc?

i tried to set up a hot dog stand in kfc once, but they evicted me

guess i'm just not cut out for business

 

[Cookie182]

HAHAHA nah that's cool. I used backspace for the 'your' uai and it looks out of place now

However, it's quite common to use the lower case 'i' in formal internet correspondence. The guy has no refute now, though (since you picked it up first).
In other news, this uhawww character deserves to study law (even if he doesn't want to) more so than a cookie-cutter poster. His english is impeccable

Well, I learned a lot about you from just two posts-

1) You know how to use basic html coding, as do the majority of members.

2) Your a pompous arsehole, with a lack of comprehension skills. Actually it is quite surprising, given your choice of degree.

I have no 'refute now'? So unlike you, I'm not allowed to make some ridiculous excuse for a lack of what? English skills?
I think it's quite obvious that I made "typos". After all, the emphasis of my post was on the original statement being discussed. What was yours? How good you are at dissecting a post based on its grammar? Well, your first paragraph was certainly okay. However, it quickly went downhill after that. Statements such as "our UAI" lol. Now that my friend ain't a typo.

One minute you’re defending the difficulty of humanities subjects against mathematics than your accusing me of making out mathematical students in law are "less worthy". Having achieved a HSC mark of 98 in Ancient History, I can tell you that mathematics extension 2 is far harder!!

The only point I was making in regards to mathematics, was that students who are that way inclined and end up with high UAI's may choose courses like law. This may not be out of interest, but based on other factors such as prestige. Hence, their performance may not be as high relative to an interested student who achieved a lower UAI. This would give the 'relative' opinion that a higher UAI does not really correlate to greater performance.

In a theoretical environment, where everyone was studying a course they had the most interest in, I thoroughly believe that a student's UAI would show a general trend of performance relative to other students. KFunk's statistics would give light to this. However, the closer the two student's UAI's, the lesser in my opinion this difference would be. As for my own personal UAI, well that has no relevance here. Obviously you must of achieved 99, are you sure you're not trying to assert your 'superiority' over someone who achieved 97?

Without doubt you’re the type of person with a lot of spare time and an even bigger ego. I most likely made grammatical errors; in fact I hope I did. It will give you yet another chance to reveal how much of a dickhead you are. See, unlike you, I'm not sad enough to care. It's the internet, and as long as it meets a basic standard of legibility then it's good enough for me. If your unable to understand what was said, then I think you should seriously re-consider your ability to study law

 

[KFunk]

KFunk's statistics would give light to this. However, the closer the two student's UAI's, the lesser in my opinion this difference would be.

There is no problem as long as noone makes bogus statements or abuses statistics. A higher UAI predicts a greater likelihood of success (under some definition of success). It does not ensure success. Nor does it dictate some upper limit to one's possible achievements. If all one claims is weak - moderate correlation then you would expect that observed differences in performance may well break down at small intervals. E.g. I would not expect any significant difference at the .05 UAI level (much as you would not expect differences in rates of stroke at a 1mmHg difference in blood pressure [though with a rediculous sample size you never know...]).

 

[Cookie182]

There is no problem as long as noone makes bogus statements or abuses statistics. A higher UAI predicts a greater likelihood of success (under some definition of success). It does not ensure success. Nor does it dictate some upper limit to one's possible achievements. If all one claims is weak - moderate correlation then you would expect that observed differences in performance may well break down at small intervals. E.g. I would not expect any significant difference at the .05 UAI level (much as you would not expect differences in rates of stroke at a 1mmHg difference in blood pressure [though with a rediculous sample size you never know...]).

Exactly. Well said, and i love the medical reference

Be careful though, Bobness may fix your spelling on a few words. Not that his opinion really means a great deal.

 

[Fat Fung]

then that decieves the whole purpose of doing the hsc. the hsc is meant to rank students in accordance to an academic system aimed to balance and scale all subjects to reduce biases.

those who earn their uai should be able to gain entry into any degree that their uai permits. they earned it, so they should be able to pick and choose for their effort. sure enough they may not have interest in it. and sure enough there is the common argument that they will choose a degree which matches their uai to "not waste" their uai. but why shouldnt they be able to do that?

i know i know~~~
i totally agree and support individual obtaining a high UAI should have the priority over us coz they "proved" to have worked hard during their HSC year to do the courses they've chosen, but I reckon unis shouldn't close its door from "not-so-smart" ppl with a high UAI simply bcoz they only want "the superb ability of photographic memory". However, I could not find any strong arguing points to support why it is such

 

[wrong_turn]

its because the universities are not free and in fact lack funding to do otherwise.

 

[Bobness]

Well, I learned a lot about you from just two posts-

1) You know how to use basic html coding, as do the majority of members.

2) Your a pompous arsehole, with a lack of comprehension skills. Actually it is quite surprising, given your choice of degree.

I have no 'refute now'? So unlike you, I'm not allowed to make some ridiculous excuse for a lack of what? English skills?

Looks like i touched a nerve? You do realise that the 'no refute' comment is intensely sarcastically? I'm not sure, did you miss the emoticon ?

I think it's quite obvious that I made "typos". After all, the emphasis of my post was on the original statement being discussed. What was yours? How good you are at dissecting a post based on its grammar? Well, your first paragraph was certainly okay. However, it quickly went downhill after that. Statements such as "our UAI" lol. Now that my friend ain't a typo.

While i would agree that you did make some typos, your grammar was actually quite atrocious (and i am not using it as a barometer of intelligence, rather just the fact that your points could be clearer THAT IS ALL). For eg 'agreeance' and 'difficultness' are neologisms and you misused it's/its and then/than. Please look at your post again if you must, i was not having a go at you, but i was criticising its content. You 'my friend' have resorted to ad hominem, and i may be jumping the gun, but you're probably a very reactive person irl if this is your response on the internet.

I already explained that the 'our UAI' was 'your uai' but i hit the backspace key. Whether you believe me is another story, but if you are reading my post in its entirety i think you can gather that it is a glaring (one-off) typo.

One minute you’re defending the difficulty of humanities subjects against mathematics than your accusing me of making out mathematical students in law are "less worthy". Having achieved a HSC mark of 98 in Ancient History, I can tell you that mathematics extension 2 is far harder!!

The only point I was making in regards to mathematics, was that students who are that way inclined and end up with high UAI's may choose courses like law. This may not be out of interest, but based on other factors such as prestige. Hence, their performance may not be as high relative to an interested student who achieved a lower UAI. This would give the 'relative' opinion that a higher UAI does not really correlate to greater performance.

I actually agree with your second point, in regards to how some mathematics gurus may not do well in law if they are not motivated. Notice the conditionals? Your last post (i won't quote it again, but it is on the previous page) was ESSENTIALIST - that was my point. Whether it was because i could not quite understand your point due to miniscule details of grammar, or because something was 'lost in translation': that was the reason behind why i stated humanities in the HSC are more difficult than what people give it credit for, and being mathematics-inclined would not preclude you from being a high achiever in tertiary law. Two different points, they aren't contradictory.

Without doubt you’re the type of person with a lot of spare time and an even bigger ego. I most likely made grammatical errors; in fact I hope I did. It will give you yet another chance to reveal how much of a dickhead you are. See, unlike you, I'm not sad enough to care. It's the internet, and as long as it meets a basic standard of legibility then it's good enough for me.

I don't know why you should be proud that you 'made grammatical errors' as i would assume that it would be quite beneficial in legal studies? If you weren't 'sad enough to care' why post such a lengthy, meandering spiel - i most certainly got lost amongst your argument and personal attacks in the post.

I actually am a very confident person, but i would disagree on the ego point simply because i'm well known to be quite deliberately hyperbolic for the lulz. I don't have a lot of spare time and apart from working two paid jobs 4 days a week for an average of 15 hours, and 10 hours of volunteer work for disadvantaged families as an english mentor, and maintaining an 85+ WAM in second year Arts / Law (90+ in major studies of English) while undertaking third year (pre) Honour units in Literature and still meating with friends, family and co-workers, i also have to reply to internet posters who presuppose my personality based on pixels on the screen

I'm also really modest (that last comment was satirical, by the way).

Oh also:

If your unable to understand what was said, then I think you should seriously re-consider your ability to study law

Child A: "You have cooties Cookie!!!!!!!!!"

Child B: "No you doooo!!!"

***

I'm not going to bother dissecting your post again, because it is obvious you don't take constructive criticism well. Do you really think, that i think, that you shouldn't be a law student based on TYPOS? Neither of us are that petty. I simply wanted to draw attention to some (perceived) poor expression in your post so that you could clarify it, and having done so i find that we are not really disagreeing on the humanities/maths point which i am very happy about.

I wish you the best of luck with your uni studies, and please argue my points raised rather than second-guessing my motives should you reply.

PS anything 'mean' you might have interpreted me as saying, is all sarcastic and intentionally hyperbolic: you're probably not as used to my subversive writing style as others Uhawww got it I can have a laugh about grammar / spelling faux pas i commit as much as the next prole

 

[AsyLum]

2) You're a pompous arsehole, with a lack of comprehension skills. Actually it is quite surprising, given your choice of degree.

If you're going to try and have an e-fight, get those little things right.

 

[Cookie182]

If you're going to try and have an e-fight, get those little things right.

No arguement there. In fact, even though it may appear weak I am withdrawing before I get completely destroyed

Bobness: There is of course no hard feelings. In fact, if you look at the majority of my responses I create a lot of stupid posts, usually with no relevant factual basis and yeah I guess I should expect such level of criticism sometimes. Maybe I have too much spare time??

I guess the tone of my response was defensive; but no you didn't hit a nerve. I will admit though; I found it challenging to be able to formulate any kind of cohesive arguement, as your grammatical knowledge far surpases mine. Naturally, being a law student I do need to develop this skill. However, you certainly do have the comparative advantage being an English major and in your second year of law. No sarcasim, you write like you could be a High Court Justice!

Not a lot more I can say. My original post though was highly rushed and I don't usually check it for errors, as my only purpose was to make a point about the topic (which I still think was generally clear, despite the errors). Nevertheless, it is good to be challenged and critiqued and I think I can learn a lot from you, which is never a bad thing.

Anyway, I'd wish you luck in your future studies, however based on your extra-curriculars I don't know if its needed!

PS- What tips would you give to someone on building stronger argumentative skills, particularly with legal writing? I would definatley like to improve!

 

[Cookie182]

For eg 'agreeance' and 'difficultness' are neologisms and you misused it's/its and then/than. [/COLOR]Please look at your post again if you must, i was not having a go at you, but i was criticising its content. You 'my friend' have resorted to ad hominem, and i may be jumping the gun, but you're probably a very reactive person irl if this is your response on the internet

Lol I also thank you for expanding my vocabularly! After a quick wiki search I learned the basic meaning of neologisms/Ad Hominem. Pretty crazy shit, especially when it comes to argueing. Did you learn this through your English major/Law or just general reading/knowledge??

 

[Forbidden.]

Great, my mechanics lecturer is now raising the difficulty of the final exams for us because the 2007 cohort is the most talented ever and it's evident in the class tests where our average was around 20% better than previous years.

 

[dumarab]

My parents (who are teachers) know kids with low UAIs are dumbshits.

My Dad does this hell funny thing every year. He always gets a dumbshit standard english class who have put in no work all year and muck around. So some 2 weeks before school ends and they start getting really nervous he says 'look, just knuckle down and pay attention in class and I'll get you a pass' - they do and end up getting a 55 for english, but what they don't realise is the marking basically starts at 50.

Once he had this kid come up to him on the playground, give him the bird and say 'fuck you sir, I didn't pay attention all year and I got a 53!'

Dad replies 'well done'

I fucking hate teachers.