well obviously you didn't read the article completely, and you have had no background reading regarding this issue.
It has been floating around with the lesser known universities and the private colleges, the idea that the UAI is not the sole indicator of university entry.
The system worked for me, I got a decent +90 UAI, got into a university degree that needed 83 UAI. So I should be happy. But that doesn't make the system sufficient. I think there are protocols put in place to help the disadvantaged: those in country areas, those with sporting commitments, the physically disabled - the problem is that it is the private schools who are able to make best advantage of the system. I don't see the UAC initiating these changes, so I think Dr. Spence is right in pushing forward programs to attract the best but not just what the UAC deems as "smart"
they have no exact 'programs' they are putting forward. merely "other selection criteria" to be used as a means of selecting 'bright' students.
here are the list of problems his suggestion has:
-the cost associated with this new means of selection
-subjectivity that it introduces (ATAR is objective and equivalent across Aus)
-the is a big discrepancy between what a student 'wants' to do and what he/she is best suited to doing. that is, if a student works hard for something and gets the score required, y should he or she be turned down by the uni in favour of someone who they see is best suited to the degree but may not want to do it. think if u were in this persons shoes, you cant get into a degree because you arent the 'best' candidate for that degree.
with every suggestion there are pros and cons and obviously his suggestion has more cons.
and ever wonder y the universities that propose these changes are the "less known" ones?