Uai (1 Viewer)

[04er]

eas points did play a substantial role though...

i forgot about that... but i have met people who are doing full fee law with uai's of 97.5 and no eas (unless they're lying)

 

[Komit]

As I said, I got 96.3 - absolutely amazed at how i got in.

 

[hasterz]

broadway scheme perhaps?

 

[_esor_]

what exactly is that??? there's all these random rumours that there are 5 uai pts up for grabs for various reasons...including debating???? just curious...

 

[ameh]

lowest: u can get a diploma

highest: usyd 99.65

 

[ptitsa]

what exactly is that??? there's all these random rumours that there are 5 uai pts up for grabs for various reasons...including debating???? just curious...

i thought broadway was for those that were disadvantaged during the hsc?

surely you can't get uai points for debating. would that then mean you'd get points for mooting and mock trial as well?
if all that is true, i'll be very pissed off....

 

[I-Jester]

You can't get UAI discounts for debating or any sort of extracurricular activities (unless you're and elite sportsman or performer) - I checked with numerous people at UAC and the Uni. It just doesn't happen.

Broadway scheme is for people with disadvantage during the HSC only. Although they require a pretty low standard of proof.

As to people doing full fee paying: whats it like to be able to fork out 18 grand and steal a spot from someone like ptista who obviously worked her ass off and missed the cuttoff by .05 (oh and 96.3 may not be a LOW UAI but its a fucking long way off the actual requirements). Admission should be based on merit - not your capacity to bribe your way in.

 

[04er]

lowest: u can get a diploma

highest: usyd 99.65

what?

 

[c_james]

You can't get UAI discounts for debating or any sort of extracurricular activities (unless you're and elite sportsman or performer) - I checked with numerous people at UAC and the Uni. It just doesn't happen.

Broadway scheme is for people with disadvantage during the HSC only. Although they require a pretty low standard of proof.

As to people doing full fee paying: whats it like to be able to fork out 18 grand and steal a spot from someone like ptista who obviously worked her ass off and missed the cuttoff by .05 (oh and 96.3 may not be a LOW UAI but its a fucking long way off the actual requirements). Admission should be based on merit - not your capacity to bribe your way in.

Just because somone missed the cut-off by what you perceive to be a substantial amount does not mean they wouldn't approach the course with the same passion and dedication that a person who got 99.6 or above would. If anything, their dedication would be higher because they know they're competing with the cream of the crop.

Do you seriously think students or their families have $18,000 just lying around every year to "bribe" a university with? I'm willing to bet many students take up jobs or take out loans just to secure their place.

Then you say admission should be based on merit. Fair enough, but I'd hardly say a person who got 99.6 is inherently more suited to the practice of law than someone who got 96.3.

 

[ameh]

lowest: LLAB diploma at tafe
highest: uai 99.6

entrance =)

 

[04er]

lowest: LLAB diploma at tafe
highest: uai 99.6

entrance =)

Gotcha

 

[pete_mate]

You can't get UAI discounts for debating or any sort of extracurricular activities (unless you're and elite sportsman or performer) - I checked with numerous people at UAC and the Uni. It just doesn't happen.

Broadway scheme is for people with disadvantage during the HSC only. Although they require a pretty low standard of proof.

As to people doing full fee paying: whats it like to be able to fork out 18 grand and steal a spot from someone like ptista who obviously worked her ass off and missed the cuttoff by .05 (oh and 96.3 may not be a LOW UAI but its a fucking long way off the actual requirements). Admission should be based on merit - not your capacity to bribe your way in.

would you say that if you could afford it?

i say it should be like good ol' capitalism, the full $18k if you need the 5 points,
1 tenth of that (1.8k) for the .5 point, and 144k a year for the really determined ppl that got 60

the employers should look at your uni marks, mr 60 may not have great ones (if he passes) if he doesnt he repeats and gives more money to the uni so the hecs ppl can still go there for free

 

[ptitsa]

You can't get UAI discounts for debating or any sort of extracurricular activities (unless you're and elite sportsman or performer) - I checked with numerous people at UAC and the Uni. It just doesn't happen.

Broadway scheme is for people with disadvantage during the HSC only. Although they require a pretty low standard of proof.

As to people doing full fee paying: whats it like to be able to fork out 18 grand and steal a spot from someone like ptista who obviously worked her ass off and missed the cuttoff by .05 (oh and 96.3 may not be a LOW UAI but its a fucking long way off the actual requirements). Admission should be based on merit - not your capacity to bribe your way in.

thanks I-Jester

I suppose I'm just feeling a bit bitter because I top the state in a subject, I'm one of those people who receive the Australian Students Prize, and I miss out on usyd law by .05. It hurts, hahah. It doesn't help that I despise my current degree as well...

Apparently it's possible to beg your way in. And if I really wanted to, I could afford to go full fee....but, pride and stubborness got in the way ;p

Of course uai doesn't equal the capacity to study law. But, naturally, I'm annoyed that I missed out whilst someone who got 96.3 is studying my dream course. It's not something personal against you, Komit. It's just the principle of it all.

Oh well. At least I can be comforted by the fact that I still had one hell of a final year of school! here's to hoping for a distinction average, and then I'll join you all next year. I'm sure as hell not staying in my current BS course.

 

[011]

Which of course prompts the question of what course you do exactly.

And as for the question on getting in on ability, the answer is simple: those who didnt meet the admission requirements (in terms of the uai points measuring particular success in studies) will probably find the course that wasnt "for them" challenging anyway.

So if they struggle to get in they'll keep struggling. This isnt speaking for everyone obviously but i'd expect thats the case.

 

[04er]

would you say that if you could afford it?

i say it should be like good ol' capitalism, the full $18k if you need the 5 points,
1 tenth of that (1.8k) for the .5 point, and 144k a year for the really determined ppl that got 60

the employers should look at your uni marks, mr 60 may not have great ones (if he passes) if he doesnt he repeats and gives more money to the uni so the hecs ppl can still go there for free

I think an emphasis on money places an emphasis on the wrong values. It also discriminates against those who don't have enough money but have met the Full-Fee cut-off. But even if entrance was based solely upon the UAI, it would still discriminate against those who don't have enough money to buy the same amount of textbooks as others, against those who are in a shit school with shit teachers and shit peer influences (by virtue of the location of their home, insufficient money to meet the requirements of a private school etc) and against those who couldn't receive additional consideration because other undeserving students decided to manipulate the special access schemes. I personally believe there is no such thing as an entirely fair entrance system.

 

[ptitsa]

Which of course prompts the question of what course you do exactly.

"b arts (advanced)"
pffffffft!

I guess it just isn't the right course for me

 

[Lazarus]

You'll get in easily if you attempt to transfer, ptitsa.

 

[Komit]

Principle or not, I got in and I don't really care. If anyone of you got in on a Full-Fee basis, you would know what I mean.

 

[I-Jester]

Unfortunately my friend, UAI cutoffs are not any sort of reflection of how well suited a person is to studying a particular area - they are about supply and demand. There are people who work fucking hard (and there is a huge distinction between the effort and dedication required for a 96.3 and 99.6) to do a course - they are the people who DESERVE to actually do a course, not the people who can pay $18,000.

There's no doubt that someone who gets 99.6 is not inherently more suited to the practice of law than someone who got 96.3. But someone who got 99.6 is more deserving of the opportunity - thats the system. In fact - anyone who gets between 96.3 and 99.6 is more deserving of the opportunity to study law at the university of Sydney.

Tell me - why should a person be able to fork out $18 000 and a subordinate UAI to go to the most sought after, prestigious law course when there are a number of law courses they are already eligible for? Macquarie, ANU, Wollongong, UWS etc etc.

This is not a question of ability - this is a question of people being able to rort the system and take places from people who have actually worked their asses off to get to Law at Sydney.

 

[c_james]

Unfortunately my friend, UAI cutoffs are not any sort of reflection of how well suited a person is to studying a particular area - they are about supply and demand. There are people who work fucking hard (and there is a huge distinction between the effort and dedication required for a 96.3 and 99.6) to do a course - they are the people who DESERVE to actually do a course, not the people who can pay $18,000.

Again, you seem to be thinking that everyone who holds a non-commonwealth supported place has ridiculously wealthy parents or something of the sort. This is simply not the case. The very fact that many students are willing to take up jobs and put themselves in the red by taking out loans means they are more than entitled to entry. I'm quite sure they work "fucking hard" too to keep their place and, in some cases, transfer to a commonwealth-supported place.

Tell me - why should a person be able to fork out $18 000 and a subordinate UAI to go to the most sought after, prestigious law course when there are a number of law courses they are already eligible for? Macquarie, ANU, Wollongong, UWS etc etc.

Tell me, who are we - or, more accurately, what is a number such as the UAI - to dictate what university a student should choose to study at? You answered your own question in a way: people are willing to pay fees simply because they are the most "sought after, prestigious" courses. For many travel is also an issue.

There's no doubt that someone who gets 99.6 is not inherently more suited to the practice of law than someone who got 96.3. But someone who got 99.6 is more deserving of the opportunity - thats the system. In fact - anyone who gets between 96.3 and 99.6 is more deserving of the opportunity to study law at the university of Sydney.

This is not a question of ability - this is a question of people being able to rort the system and take places from people who have actually worked their asses off to get to Law at Sydney.

There is no "rorting" of the system. The very fact that it is a system, one endorsed by the universities, means it is an honest means of enrolling in a law course. I would not consider anyone in a non-commonwealth supported place to have cheated their way in or anything of the sort and, clearly, neither do the universities.

The fee-paying system was implemented because the limitations of entry by one rigid UAI cut-off were realised. You're correct in saying it is not a question of ability - but it should be. To redress this, non-commonwealth supported places take into account the fact that many marginally below the cut-off DO have the ability. This is, in my eyes as well as the eyes of many others, a fair system.