UTS v UWS (1 Viewer)

[erawamai]

The main problem I have with using uai's as an indicator is that it is being applied to 1 person here. If it was 100 people with a uai of 98 and 100 people with a uai of 90, then I would of course say that on average the 98 people are going to be better.

UAI's are all the universities have. For years it has been used and I think they find that it is the BEST (Not perfect. No method would be.) way to predict the quality of the student. It's also totally objective and eliminates the subjective element (ie corruption, favoritism, nepotism) if selection was more subjective and on a case by case basis.

 

[santaslayer]

UAI's are all the universities have. For years it has been used and I think they find that it is the BEST (Not perfect. No method would be.) way to predict the quality of the student.

That's what I've been saying all day long. Anyway, nuff said.


EDIT: Woops, one more thing.

About the UAI's, Law and NTB:

What I'm saying is that if:

1) You criticise the UAI for its accuracy, and then,

2) You asked the heads of the programme because you were worried about your preformance due to your LOWER UAI.

Then, WTF? Which side are you on?

 

[erawamai]

That's what I've been saying all day long. Anyway, nuff said.

I said it much more succinctly

 

[Not-That-Bright]

UAI's are all the universities have. For years it has been used and I think they find that it is the BEST (Not perfect. No method would be.) way to predict the quality of the student.

Of course, I believe UAI's are the best thing they have to predict the quality of the student. However it's alot easier when you're dealing with a large/equal samples to make such a claim... for instance I do believe you could say "On the whole, 98 uai students will on average perform better at university than a 90 uai student", however there's a fairly big leep there to say "One random 98 uai student will beat all/most 90 uai students at university". If you have 100000000 90 uai students, surely some of them are going to perform much better and some will perform worse in university, now while your average 98 uai student will beat your average 90 uai student, it is (i think we can assume) quite possible that some 90 uai students will have the ability to perform better than your average 98 uai student in university. So when you say that probably this 98 uai student will kill most/all in a course, you are ignoring the fact that there is a greater possibilty of deviation from the average as the group of students with uai's lower than him is so much larger .

If this 98 uai student is average, and all the lower uai students at uws are also average... then of course he will beat them all. However it is highly unlikely that all the lower-uai uws students are going to be average scorers, it is likely we will have a wide-range of results.

As I am willing to conceed that an average 98 uai student performs better than an average 90 uai student (I don't know what the average uai is of students at uws, but we will accept the lowest) - And by this, I am accepting the fact that your average 98 uai student (whom we will assume the OT is as we have no further data with which to work with) will beat at least 51% of 90 uai students... However, while I am willing to accept out of hand that higher uai students perform better in university, as we do not know by how much we cannot come up with an accurate model for how many 90 uai students (once we ascertain the deviations from uai result to uni results) a 98 uai student (once we also ascertain their deviations) will beat.

About the UAI's, Law and NTB:

What I'm saying is that if:

1) You criticise the UAI for its accuracy, and then,

2) You asked the heads of the programme because you were worried about your preformance due to your LOWER UAI.

Then, WTF? Which side are you on?

These events happen in a different order. Back in 2004 I ask the heads of the different programme's because I'm worried about my performance due to my lower uai....

Later, I criticise the UAI for its accuracy in this thread.

I do not hold both beliefs, obviously belief I held when the former event occured has changed/disappeared before I criticised the uai in this thread.

 

[BillytheFIsh]

People, people, people...

The horse was dead about 4 pages ago...

 

[santaslayer]

Of course, I believe UAI's are the best thing they have to predict the quality of the student. However it's alot easier when you're dealing with a large/equal samples to make such a claim... for instance I do believe you could say "On the whole, 98 uai students will on average perform better at university than a 90 uai student", however there's a fairly big leep there to say "One random 98 uai student will beat all/most 90 uai students at university". If you have 100000000 90 uai students, surely some of them are going to perform much better and some will perform worse in university, now while your average 98 uai student will beat your average 90 uai student, it is (i think we can assume) quite possible that some 90 uai students will have the ability to perform better than your average 98 uai student in university. So when you say that probably this 98 uai student will kill most/all in a course, you are ignoring the fact that there is a greater possibilty of deviation from the average as the group of students with uai's lower than him is so much larger .


.

1) No it isn't. From what past sources we can gather, picking a random 98 student and assuming/betting that he/she will beat all or MOST of the calibre is completely justified. It is more of a daring leap to assume that some other random who scrapped into UWS Law would be the one to beat all or MOST of the students.

2) He/she is STILL beating MOST of the student body. I can't emphasise this fact more. This issue dates back to my first post and was followed up with numerous other posts stating the exact same thing.

These events happen in a different order. Back in 2004 I ask the heads of the different programme's because I'm worried about my performance due to my lower uai....

Later, I criticise the UAI for its accuracy in this thread.

I do not hold both beliefs, obviously belief I held when the former event occured has changed/disappeared before I criticised the uai in this thread.

Yes, how very convenient.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

1) No it isn't. From what past sources we can gather, picking a random 98 student and assuming/betting that he/she will beat all or MOST of the calibre is completely justified.

No it's not, I gave you statistical reasons as to why it's not justified and you have provided no answer.

3) You'll probably kill most, if not everyone in the course.

This is what you said, you said that this average 98 uai student will probably kill most, if not everyone in the course (I am going to assume that kill means beat by a great margin, or at least beat them) - this means you are claiming that this average 98 uai student, one student, will have the ability to beat most of / all of the 200 other students in the course. While I accept out of hand that your average 98 uai student will beat your average 90 uai student (so at least 50% of the students... if we accept that all uws law students have uai's of 90), we have to also accept that within a cohort of 200 90 uai students, given that we know there will be at least some deviation from their uai and their performance in uni.. there will probably be some at the fringes that will beat your average 90uai student.

Your average 98 uai student i'll assume will beat your average 90 uai student in uni, but if you have 200 90 uai students... is one of them going to perform better than a 98 uai student? What I am asking is if we took randomly 200 90 uai students would any of them beat an average 98 uai student at uni? Lets also realise that we do not know what the average uai of UWS law is, only what the lowest uai students have.

We need more information as to how much uni marks deviate from peoples uai's, and the difference between those with 98 and those with 90, but I think as we both accept there is some deviation that you are very unwise to tell someone with 98 that they will probably kill most, if not everybody in the course.

 

[santaslayer]

No it's not, I gave you statistical reasons as to why it's not justified and you have provided no answer.
This is what you said, you said that this average 98 uai student will probably kill most, if not everyone in the course (I am going to assume that kill means beat by a great margin, or at least beat them) - this means you are claiming that this average 98 uai student, one student, will have the ability to beat most of / all of the 200 other students in the course. While I accept out of hand that your average 98 uai student will beat your average 90 uai student (so at least 50% of the students... if we accept that all uws law students have uai's of 90), we have to also accept that within a cohort of 200 90 uai students, given that we know there will be at least some deviation from their uai and their performance in uni.. there will probably be some at the fringes that will beat your average 90uai student.

Your average 98 uai student i'll assume will beat your average 90 uai student in uni, but if you have 200 90 uai students... is one of them going to perform better than a 98 uai student? What I am asking is if we took randomly 200 90 uai students would any of them beat an average 98 uai student at uni? Lets also realise that we do not know what the average uai of UWS law is, only what the lowest uai students have.

We need more information as to how much uni marks deviate from peoples uai's, and the difference between those with 98 and those with 90, but I think as we both accept there is some deviation that you are very unwise to tell someone with 98 that they will probably kill most, if not everybody in the course.

Your statistical reasoning consists of:

a) You conceed that AS A WHOLE, 98'ers will beat 90's, BUT

1)picking a random 98'er and saying that he/she will beat everyone/MOST people is wrong.

2) there is a greater possibilty of deviation from the average as the group of students with uai's lower than him is so much larger.

also, from your latest post, you have added:

3) Even though ALL 199 people in the cohort MAY have obtained 90's , there may still be SOME that could beat our thread maker.

4) We do not know exactly, how many people actually obtained a low 90, or a NEAR 98. (which is nearly the same as the second point).


My answers, or thoughts:

1) I do not agree, because:

2, 4) As I said before, the possibility of UWS students having a majority of near 98.00 UAIS for THIS year and many other years is near impossible. Why?

-) If they did, they would be throwing their arses to the universities near the city, not UWS. (The majority of them).

-) UWS has been stuffed with both internal and external problems, this fact has been exploited by the media too much for anyone not to know about.

-) "Western" has always been affiliated negatively.

-) Reputation

-) Perceptions of UAI=Course quality.

The above is by no means a bashing of UWS. These are cold, hard facts that, IMO, are simply undisputed. This does not mean that the threadmaker should leave UWS for someplace else. My original thought on the issue still stands.

With the above points, it is safe to assume that MOST people that attend UWS are by no means in the top half of the 90's. That already fulfills the criteria of beating MOST people.

3) Yep, overnight miracles? Even if SOME did, it wouldn't be the majority. MOST people would be killed is still justified as I pointed out many moons ago.

EDIT: I must admit that 2 or so years before I did the HSC, i remebered that UWS actually had 98+ cutoffs for law. The strong fluctuations in UAI have also contributed to the negativity.

 

[melsc]

Just so you guys know, I know of two 98ers doing UWS, I also met a 95er on Tuesday and I didnt get ask the others. I'm not taking sides but you guys should stop fighting...they threadmaker has made his decision.

 

[santaslayer]

Just so you guys know, I know of two 98ers doing UWS, I also met a 95er on Tuesday and I didnt get ask the others. I'm not taking sides but you guys should stop fighting...they threadmaker has made his decision.

Yes, but are they in the majority? Simple, one-off examples are not enough to be in the bulk.

 

[melsc]

I wasn't really trying to make that point.I was in no way trying to suggest that the majority of UWS law students have UAI's > 95 I don't think they are in the majority however I am just saying that there are a few (not a significant proportion) at least more than one with a high UAI. Since I was at a scholarship meeting when I met these potential law students I guess they would be the one's with the higher UAI. That said I assumed mine was probably the lowest in the room for the law scholarships anyway. But I do understand these people would be in the minority. I was just trying to say there are at least some with a uai >95

 

[Not-That-Bright]

3) Even though ALL 199 people in the cohort MAY have obtained 90's , there may still be SOME that could beat our thread maker.

No my first point was that out of 200 people who achieved 90 uai we do not know how many at the university level will not score as well as the average student with a uai of 98. How many do you suppose?

With the above points, it is safe to assume that MOST people that attend UWS are by no means in the top half of the 90's. That already fulfills the criteria of beating MOST people.

You are completely and utterly missing what I am saying! If you have 200 people who achieved a uai of 90, then as we both agree there is a difference between a uai and the marks you achieve in university, we have to accept that there is a real distinct possibility that a few of the 90 uai students will perform greater than your average 98 uai student at the university level!

My second point was that your problem is even greater once the uai gap shortens and we accept that there will be students at uws with uai's closer to his than 90.

Yep, overnight miracles? Even if SOME did, it wouldn't be the majority. MOST people would be killed is still justified as I pointed out many moons ago.

I have repeated, over and over again... that the majority would be beaten this does not equate to killing most, if not everyone, I also would not by any measure call a majority victory a 'killing'.

 

[santaslayer]

I wasn't really trying to make that point.I was in no way trying to suggest that the majority of UWS law students have UAI's > 95 I don't think they are in the majority however I am just saying that there are a few (not a significant proportion) at least more than one with a high UAI. Since I was at a scholarship meeting when I met these potential law students I guess they would be the one's with the higher UAI. That said I assumed mine was probably the lowest in the room for the law scholarships anyway. But I do understand these people would be in the minority. I was just trying to say there are at least some with a uai >95

Yes. A LOT are in the same catergory. They stay there because of many reasons. One of which, is the delicious scholarship.

Good luck with the scholarship, and in general, your law studies.

 

[melsc]

Yes. A LOT are in the same catergory. They stay there because of many reasons. One of which, is the delicious scholarship.

Good luck with the scholarship, and in general, your law studies.

Thanks :uhhuh: Its a pretty crummy scholarship but hey if it pays all of my first year and I didnt even apply for it who am I complain. But guys relax, as i said the thread poster has made his decision esp now our preferences are locked in tonight and u guys are just wasting ur time lol.

By the way Santaslayer thanks for putting up with my I wont get 90 stressing in 04/05

 

[santaslayer]

No my first point was that out of 200 people who achieved 90 uai we do not know how many at the university level will not score as well as a student with a uai of 98. How many do you suppose?

The UAI is the only thing we have to predict success in tertiary study.

You are completely and utterly missing what I am saying! If you have 200 people who achieved a uai of 90, then as we both agree there is a difference between a uai and the marks you achieve in university, we have to accept that there is a real distinct possibility that a few of the 90 uai students will perform greater than your average 98 uai student at the university level!

The keyword is a "few". This does not represent the majority.

My second point was that your problem is even greater once the uai gap shortens and we accept that there will be students at uws with uai's closer to his than 90.

These are also in the "few" catergory, as melsc has just pointed out.

I have repeated, over and over again... that the majority would be beaten this does not equate to killing most, if not everyone, I also would not by any measure call a majority victory a 'killing'.

A "Killing" cannot be defined absoloutly. There is no point, as another 1000 pages of threads will be produced. Show me where you said such a thing and I will openly say sorry. I have also checked all your threads and checked when each was created. I have copid and pasted all the "Last Edited" messages just in case.


@ melsc: Don't be so humble. You deserved the 90+.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The UAI is the only thing we have to predict success in tertiary study.

So you are not willing to accept that there will be a difference between how people score in highschool and in uni? That some 90 uai people will do worse, some will stay the same and some will do better?

The keyword is a "few". This does not represent the majority.

You said they would kill most/all... I will get back to this in my last point, but I did already state that they would beat the majority as I accept this out of hand (average 98 uai student will beat average 90 uai student, of which we assume 50% are at least average or bellow).

These are also in the "few" catergory, as melsc has just pointed out.

Yes but the problem is even worse when you start dealing with the majority of uws students only being say 4 uai points bellow him, what is the chance that one of them may deviate above that of your average 98 uai student? It just gets more likely.

A "Killing" cannot be defined absoloutly.

Well it is quite obvious what you meant, unless you'd like to redefine it? I mean you said kill most/all, by which I would assume the most would be quite close to 'all'. Especially after the word 'killing' was used.

There is no point, as another 1000 pages of threads will be produced. Show me where you said such a thing and I will openly say sorry. I have also checked all your threads and checked when each was created. I have copid and pasted all the "Last Edited" messages just in case.

As I am willing to conceed that an average 98 uai student performs better than an average 90 uai student (I don't know what the average uai is of students at uws, but we will accept the lowest) - And by this, I am accepting the fact that your average 98 uai student (whom we will assume the OT is as we have no further data with which to work with) will beat at least 51% of 90 uai students... However, while I am willing to accept out of hand that higher uai students perform better in university, as we do not know by how much we cannot come up with an accurate model for how many 90 uai students (once we ascertain the deviations from uai result to uni results) a 98 uai student (once we also ascertain their deviations) will beat.

http://community.boredofstudies.org/showpost.php?p=2141903&postcount=106

While I accept out of hand that your average 98 uai student will beat your average 90 uai student (so at least 50% of the students... if we accept that all uws law students have uai's of 90)

http://community.boredofstudies.org/showpost.php?p=2143554&postcount=109

 

[melsc]

@ melsc: Don't be so humble. You deserved the 90+.

LOL do you know how much (or how little should I say) I studied
No my mother said I got it coz I wanted it that bad, well I wanted a mark that would get me into law badly. But thanks for believing in me when i didnt even believe I could do it...now I wish I did try harder...I would have had I thought 90+ was possible

 

[Frigid]

we've got plenty of members from all universities; further discussion is futile as opinions are like arseholes.

as de facto caretaker of this forum, i announce this thread to be ended. no more. zilch. kaput. a dead parrot. void ab initio.

 

[MiuMiu]

Pardon my rudeness, but who died and made you boss?

If people weren't interested they'd stop reading the thread.

 

[hYperTrOphY]

Wow guys, that's enough. Unless you are enjoying this argument, there is no need to continue.

I agree with both of what you say. There will be a very small minority of students who score 98+ at UWS this year. The UAI, while not perfect, is the best measurement we have of a student's aptitude and work ethic - their readiness for tertiary education. As such, I think it is a fair comment that those who scored well are more likely to do well at Uni. Furthermore, I think the gap will be larger between 98+ students and the rest at UWS, as there are alternatives for students with 95-96+ UAIs at the other, more 'highly regarded' universities. Thus, it could be argued that most other students will be low 90s rather than mid 90s (just an assumption though).

However, there are many other determinants of tertiary success - some of which have been stated by NTB. It is possible that I will not work hard enough at uni. It is possible that I will not adapt to university. It is possible that due to the imperfections of the UAI system, other students - who received lowers UAIs - will do better than me, academically. And it is because you are referring to me, as one individual, that these possibilities are intensified, and my success less assured (in comparison to a group of 98+ers).

But anyway, I have made my decision and I hope to make the most of it. Thanks to everyone who answered any question of mine - whether in this thread or another!