Scaling (1 Viewer)

[Curry]

Who else thinks that UAI is scaled way too highly and sets up unrealistic expectations for Uni?

 

[rama_v]

I dont seem to agree. If anything its set a bit too low at least for engineering courses. I know that ppl who get 80s get into engineering and struggle in uni, most drop out. I guess it depends on the demand not on the difficulty of the course...

 

[pig_93]

i used to be like you and despise scaling.
but the more you look at it and its implications and reasoning, you will see, and come to realise yourself, that it is necessary.
its not that i do 'high scaling' subjects either
ie i do general maths and if i got 90% in it, i dont think someone who got 75% in advanced maths should have that 15 mark difference between us.

 

[Curry]

I dont seem to agree. If anything its set a bit too low at least for engineering courses. I know that ppl who get 80s get into engineering and struggle in uni, most drop out. I guess it depends on the demand not on the difficulty of the course...

I tend to agree that the UAI for engineering courses is way too low, and support moves by certain Uni's (eg. UNSW), to introduce a benchmark. They should preserve such benchmarks and lower the scaling so courses can reflect a certain degree of how difficult they will be.

 

[Curry]

i used to be like you and despise scaling.
but the more you look at it and its implications and reasoning, you will see, and come to realise yourself, that it is necessary.
its not that i do 'high scaling' subjects either
ie i do general maths and if i got 90% in it, i dont think someone who got 75% in advanced maths should have that 15 mark difference between us.

Don't you think it would be more appropriate to scale the person doing general math down, rather than scaling those (who got those questions wrong anyway) up.

Note: Don't think I am bitter about what I got for my mark. I got a very pleasing 96, and a Co-op scholarship worth around 13k. But what I am finding at Uni is that the engneering course I am doing, which had an entry mark of 78, is extrodinarily difficult. I realise that this is based on demand, but surely, should it not also reflect soem of its difficulty as propotionate to your UAI?

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

Who else thinks that UAI is scaled way too highly and sets up unrealistic expectations for Uni?

What exactly do you mean by UAIs being scaled too highly? Do you mean to say that getting 99+ is misleading students into believing that they are better than they really are?

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

Don't you think it would be more appropriate to scale the person doing general math down, rather than scaling those (who got those questions wrong anyway) up.

Note: Don't think I am bitter about what I got for my mark. I got a very pleasing 96, and a Co-op scholarship worth around 13k. But what I am finding at Uni is that the engneering course I am doing, which had an entry mark of 78, is extrodinarily difficult. I realise that this is based on demand, but surely, should it not also reflect soem of its difficulty as propotionate to your UAI?

You have a point about difficulty, but the likelihood is that people who struggle in Engineering will change courses sometime anyway. Engineering is notorious for its difficulty and I highly doubt that anyone who wasn't prepared for the workload/difficulty would choose it in the first place. Unless of course they were misinformed or had no knowledge of its difficulty, but I find that to be an unlikely scenario.

 

[Curry]

What exactly do you mean by UAIs being scaled too highly? Do you mean to say that getting 99+ is misleading students into believing that they are better than they really are?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

 

[Eagles]

Yes, it is. But who cares once you're in uni?

I see so many 98+ people aiming for a mere 'pass'.

WTF happened to the standards???

 

[melsc]

There are many reasons for the high UAIs at the moment...not that I like it but this is what I have been told.

1. The old TER system allowed students to get under 30 for their TER, therefore the courses were proportionate. The cut offs were lower because it was much harder to get the higher TERs and it was possible to get below 30. So when the New HSC was introduced it was easier to get a higher UAI as the bottom UAI was 30 and not 0 therefore the cut offs were raised to accomodate this.

2. The reason for such high UAIs for courses like Law etc...is because so many people apply for them they have to limit the amount of people they accept to meet their places...so if they have 100 places they can only allow up to a certain UAI so that they only have as many people eligable as places avaliable.

What annoys me is the ammount of people that apply for courses for the wrong reasons and push the UAI up so high, people who REALLY want to do the course cannot do it and people who get the UAI but dont care can do it

 

[s0k0y0e0]

I'm not sure whether the UAI is set too high or not, because I've NEVER been to Uni and don't know what the different courses are like!

What I DO think though, is that HSC students are put under too much pressure abou the HSC! :uhhuh:

Yes, it's important, but it's NOT worth getting so stressed over that you're a different person, get depressed or even are led to suicide!

There is ALWAYS backdoors! As we are ALWAYS TOLD! :uhhuh:

 

[Eagles]

There are many reasons for the high UAIs at the moment...not that I like it but this is what I have been told.

1. The old TER system allowed students to get under 30 for their TER, therefore the courses were proportionate. The cut offs were lower because it was much harder to get the higher TERs and it was possible to get below 30. So when the New HSC was introduced it was easier to get a higher UAI as the bottom UAI was 30 and not 0 therefore the cut offs were raised to accomodate this.

2. The reason for such high UAIs for courses like Law etc...is because so many people apply for them they have to limit the amount of people they accept to meet their places...so if they have 100 places they can only allow up to a certain UAI so that they only have as many people eligable as places avaliable.

What annoys me is the ammount of people that apply for courses for the wrong reasons and push the UAI up so high, people who REALLY want to do the course cannot do it and people who get the UAI but dont care can do it

No, you can get a uai of under 30. you'll just receive a star for your efforts.

Wrong reasons? They got the marks, uni choose the best people, it does not care for the reasons since they get paid the same.

Med however, is changing away from that ever so slowly...

 

[melsc]

No, you can get a uai of under 30. you'll just receive a star for your efforts.

Wrong reasons? They got the marks, uni choose the best people, it does not care for the reasons since they get paid the same.

Med however, is changing away from that ever so slowly...

How can you get a UAI under 30, I thought that the people who dropped out or didnt finish the HSC made up the bottom 30?

I know that UNIs dont care abt reasons, what I mean is that Is WHY the UAIs are so high

 

[Eagles]

u can, just that you don't 'get' the uai, u get a star instead

lol, so you want to go thru an interview for law?

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

How can you get a UAI under 30, I thought that the people who dropped out or didnt finish the HSC made up the bottom 30?

I know that UNIs dont care abt reasons, what I mean is that Is WHY the UAIs are so high

You can get a UAI below 30, but it's reported as: "Below 30". They don't specify the exact UAI that you attained.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

What annoys me is the ammount of people that apply for courses for the wrong reasons and push the UAI up so high, people who REALLY want to do the course cannot do it and people who get the UAI but dont care can do it

You have a point there.
One negative aspect of the UAI is that it encourages people with high UAIs to enter courses merely for prestige. Of course, there are lots of students who wish to do Law or Med, get high UAIs and succeed. However, when students receive 99.6+ and choose Law simply to flaunt their achievements in the HSC, that's rather selfish imo.

Again, I raise my point that some sort of entrance exams into uni should be introduced. Hopefully, it would deter high-achieving students from selecting uni courses with high cut-offs merely for the sake of prestige.

 

[melsc]

You have a point there.
One negative aspect of the UAI is that it encourages people with high UAIs to enter courses merely for prestige. Of course, there are lots of students who wish to do Law or Med, get high UAIs and succeed. However, when students receive 99.6+ and choose Law simply to flaunt their achievements in the HSC, that's rather selfish imo.

Again, I raise my point that some sort of entrance exams into uni should be introduced. Hopefully, it would deter high-achieving students from selecting uni courses with high cut-offs merely for the sake of prestige.

personally I think there should be something like the UMAT test but slightly different for courses like law to prevent these probs

 

[silvermoon]

but that would be a bit difficult wouldnt it? there is really no way to measure why people want to apply for a course. for example, i know that courses like medical radiation have interviews and written statements were you are asked to explain why you want to do that course and where you would go with it etc. but anyone smart enough to get into a "prestigous course" wouldnt be stupid enough to say they only wanted to do it becuase of money/status etc; so the effect, whilst good intentioned, would be wasted.

the real problem is more to do with the fact that society now emphasises professions like medicine and law as being more prestigous then others (contrast this with even 50 years ago, when law was seen as undesirable but teachers were highly regarded). these attitudes are what needs to change, not the HSC and UAI scheme

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

but that would be a bit difficult wouldnt it? there is really no way to measure why people want to apply for a course. for example, i know that courses like medical radiation have interviews and written statements were you are asked to explain why you want to do that course and where you would go with it etc. but anyone smart enough to get into a "prestigous course" wouldnt be stupid enough to say they only wanted to do it becuase of money/status etc; so the effect, whilst good intentioned, would be wasted.

the real problem is more to do with the fact that society now emphasises professions like medicine and law as being more prestigous then others (contrast this with even 50 years ago, when law was seen as undesirable but teachers were highly regarded). these attitudes are what needs to change, not the HSC and UAI scheme

I think a vast number of students select Law and Medicine for both status and money. You're definitely correct in saying that social attitudes need to change, but that's not going to occur for a while and if it does, society will have to do it on its own.

 

[JamiL]

personally I think there should be something like the UMAT test but slightly different for courses like law to prevent these probs

i totally agree...
i do 4u math, phy, chem and english. now if i get 99.6 (not that im saying i will) i could go do law in syd, with no bases in legal studies or anything. legal studies and similar subjects dont "scale" as well as my subjects making it easyer to get that uai (ie if we got the same marks, phy would be a better uai contributor than legal). So i think if there was a umat type test 4 subjects like law,
ps no i wouldn do law neway id fail... n wot would be the point of that