Having done 3U maths this year (2U and ext 1) i was shocked to see that if ext 1 maths had counted for 2 units my UAI would have been in the vicinity of 3 pts higher. Fortunately, this will not mean the difference between getting into a course and failing narrowly. However, i am sure that a handful of students (at least) across NSW would be majorly affected by this flaw. This is a result of 4U students having ext 1 and ext 2 counting for 2 units each. Why the english system of 2U + ext 1 + ext 2 cannot be used is well beyond me, after all a 4u student should be able to blitz the 2U exam and boost its scaling, so as no-effect would be passed on. Having sat in a 3U class with my 4U classmates for the same length of time and completed the same assessments it seem highly unfair that 3U maths should be twice as important for them. As we know the difficulty of subjects should not affect it at all in unit counting, purely time as in 100 or so indicative hours is meant to be the only measure. Is it fair for 4U students to exploit the system in such a way? Perhaps all 4U students should do accelerated 2U maths in year 11? To me it seems that my friends economics should count as 3 units while mine should count as 2 because he does geography, as they are considered different subjects.
Last edited: