-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Law UNSW atar (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter eoaid203
- Start date
.kumori
Well-Known Member
2025 lowest selection rank: 97.7 + LAT
2026 lowest selection rank: 97.8 + LAT
I think probably 98.50? idk
2026 lowest selection rank: 97.8 + LAT
I think probably 98.50? idk
RZ1234
🟧
85 lowest atar
UNSW really taking anyone these days. idk why UNSW is trying to follow a regressive American admissions model.
yes the course is probably easy, but why are u taking someone who clearly did not try in school
Last edited:
1. That was when they had the LAT, so these ppl had to do another test and score well in it. LAT isnt here anymore so the atar will likely increase to 99.5 like usyd rightView attachment 52342
85 lowest atar
UNSW really taking anyone these days. idk why UNSW is trying to follow a regressive American admissions model.
yes the course is probably easy, but why are u taking someone who clearly did not try in school
2. That score is accounting for gateway admissions/ppl that r disadvantaged, ppl that arent disadvantaged still had to make a 98 or smth on top of a 90th percentile LAT. Even medicine at UNSW has a 'lowest atar' of 91.05 which doesn't mean its an easy course to get into, practically no one can get in, since its literally one of the hardest courses to get into besides USYD med (which doesnt even need a ucat so in a way you can say its similar in difficulting since ppl can get 99.95s and still not get into unsw if their LAT isnt good enough).
RZ1234
🟧
Actually, Gateway people don't have to sit for the LAT at all, it says. Nor do they have to sit for UCAT which I think is even worse.
Right so i didnt say gateway people did have to sit it, i said ppl that aren't disadvantaged have to sit it, which is fully accurate (until this year).
Reread my message. Gateway isnt "letting anyone in," it accounts for socioeconomic disadvantages that can be more significant than you can really comprehend.
RZ1234
🟧
91.05 and "doesnt mean its an easy course to get into" is quite literally an oxymoron. 91.05 is 85th percentile according to UAC data. Yes I am totally aware 91.05 is a gateway score, but the elephant in the room is that they didn't have to sit the UCAT aptitude exam.
Also, that same person who got in with 91.05 if they went to school in a wealthy suburb would probably only get a 93 at max, far away from 97/99, in the same way a 99.95 is vastly different to a 99.00.
If socioeconomic factors were the be all end all as you imply, explain why Knox Grammar, Sydney Grammar, Kings school all have lower band 6s than the top few selective schools (Knox Grammar, Sydney Grammar, Kings School also ALL have a larger student body than the public selective schools)?
Explain why my hs in a upper-middle class suburb north west of sydney performs awfully with less than 20 band 6s? (a majority white school too).
Fun fact: I found many schools on UNSW's gateway school list that had substantially MORE band 6s than my middle class suburb's school, yet my school isn't, even though school is apparently that important to learning those specific schools qualified in the first place? .Put away your far-left identity politics and think rationally, do you genuinely think that's fair
A fucking selective school in blacktown qualifies for gateway, a school that is resourced atleast as well as my comprehensive school in a middle-upper class suburb, yet mine isn't... even though hsc results point towards my school more underresourced.
A slightly fairer system would be to base gateway qualification status based on family income, but of course that's too rational for far-leftists like you.
Last edited:
When were we talking about left and right?
Is your alternate suggestion that no equity pathways exist? Gateway requires a personal impact statement, they're not just letting any random kid at blacktown in. It's a similar process to a scholarship in that your personal statement has to be impactful and really reflect your circumstances. For the record I go to a top 2 selective school so I don't know why you're acting like I have such a bias with this. Equity schemes are important for educational access, even if people "exploit it" as you're implying, if it really bothers you just lock in. I guarantee you if you don't get into a course you want, that's because you didn't pull through, not because your spots are being taken by gateway students. Besides my original question was asking about the minimum atar requirement to get in alone, not the lowest possible atar, as I definitely do not quality for it, so I don't know what you're making a big fuss about
Is your alternate suggestion that no equity pathways exist? Gateway requires a personal impact statement, they're not just letting any random kid at blacktown in. It's a similar process to a scholarship in that your personal statement has to be impactful and really reflect your circumstances. For the record I go to a top 2 selective school so I don't know why you're acting like I have such a bias with this. Equity schemes are important for educational access, even if people "exploit it" as you're implying, if it really bothers you just lock in. I guarantee you if you don't get into a course you want, that's because you didn't pull through, not because your spots are being taken by gateway students. Besides my original question was asking about the minimum atar requirement to get in alone, not the lowest possible atar, as I definitely do not quality for it, so I don't know what you're making a big fuss about
91.05 and "doesnt mean its an easy course to get into" is quite literally an oxymoron. 91.05 is 85th percentile according to UAC data. Yes I am totally aware 91.05 is a gateway score, but the elephant in the room is that they didn't have to sit the UCAT aptitude exam.
Also, that same person who got in with 91.05 if they went to school in a wealthy suburb would probably only get a 93 at max, far away from 97/99, in the same way a 99.95 is vastly different to a 99.00.
If socioeconomic factors were the be all end all as you imply, explain why Knox Grammar, Sydney Grammar, Kings school all have lower band 6s than the top few selective schools (Knox Grammar, Sydney Grammar, Kings School also ALL have a larger student body than the public selective schools)?
Explain why my hs in a upper-middle class suburb north west of sydney performs awfully with less than 20 band 6s? (a majority white school too).
Fun fact: I found many schools on UNSW's gateway school list that had substantially MORE band 6s than my middle class suburb's school, yet my school isn't, even though school is apparently that important to learning those specific schools qualified in the first place? .Put away your far-left identity politics and think rationally, do you genuinely think that's fair
A fucking selective school in blacktown qualifies for gateway, a school that is resourced atleast as well as my comprehensive school in a middle-upper class suburb, yet mine isn't... even though hsc results point towards my school more underresourced.
Last edited:
very unlikely. would be 98s. both cohorts take together combined maybe 1000? lets say maybe 500 are non out of state, non bonus points of some kind, non-IB etc. lets say 1/3 of atars above a certain atar do law. 1500/90000 (ATAR is age cohort iirc) give or take -> 98s
Last edited:
proper family incomes too hard to track -> trusts, companies, assets, other weird structures91.05 and "doesnt mean its an easy course to get into" is quite literally an oxymoron. 91.05 is 85th percentile according to UAC data. Yes I am totally aware 91.05 is a gateway score, but the elephant in the room is that they didn't have to sit the UCAT aptitude exam.
Also, that same person who got in with 91.05 if they went to school in a wealthy suburb would probably only get a 93 at max, far away from 97/99, in the same way a 99.95 is vastly different to a 99.00.
If socioeconomic factors were the be all end all as you imply, explain why Knox Grammar, Sydney Grammar, Kings school all have lower band 6s than the top few selective schools (Knox Grammar, Sydney Grammar, Kings School also ALL have a larger student body than the public selective schools)?
Explain why my hs in a upper-middle class suburb north west of sydney performs awfully with less than 20 band 6s? (a majority white school too).
Fun fact: I found many schools on UNSW's gateway school list that had substantially MORE band 6s than my middle class suburb's school, yet my school isn't, even though school is apparently that important to learning those specific schools qualified in the first place? .Put away your far-left identity politics and think rationally, do you genuinely think that's fair
A fucking selective school in blacktown qualifies for gateway, a school that is resourced atleast as well as my comprehensive school in a middle-upper class suburb, yet mine isn't... even though hsc results point towards my school more underresourced.
A slightly fairer system would be to base gateway qualification status based on family income, but of course that's too rational for far-leftists like you.
location seems like a kinda dumb system. maybe by school could be better - but that rewards bad teaching. on 2nd thought maybe by school could work in some way
best way to minimise disadvantage would probably be to equalise teaching somehow. state is probably in need of proper smart people to open access quality learning materials — but everyone’d rather profit off it. maybe nsw edu budget can split funding from schools towards such a project
Last edited: