shattered!! missed out by that much...

[Russ]

So what's the difference between someone with minor circumstances and a 96 and someone with major circumstances and a 90? Do they both get an offer?

The whole point of the SEAS program is that everybody has different circumstances...

[Eriny]

There is one thing that you haven't considered. That is, people are at a better school for a reason. The average student at a top private school is simply more intelligent than the average student at a public school. These people are more likely to want to go on to study at a good uni like Melbourne. You have the cause and effect relationship the wrong way round.

So you can't just say 'it's harder to go from a public school to melb uni'. The main factor is the students themselves, not the school or postcode.

You mean to say that good students choose to go to better schools? I don't recall ever having much of a choice as to which school I went to. And it's not as though every family can afford to send their kid to any school in the state at $20,000+, is it? And yes, the harder you work the better you'll do, probably. That doesn't mean that there aren't any limitations to that.

I'm not sure what you mean about postcodes. Are you saying that people who aren't very smart/hard-working go to live in specific suburbs? Does living in that suburb makes their children not very smart/hard working either? Since, again, I don't remember having much of a choice as to where my parents decided to buy a house.

Melbourne can't have missed this, they must have some ulterior motive for admitting students from different backgrounds. It could well be what mavisgibbons posted about Harvard before. But that wouldn't stop students who only narrowly missed out on a place from feeling hard done by.

The Harvard thing said that Harvard would be a WORSE place if they only awarded places to people on academic merits alone and that diversity adds to the educational experience. So, I guess that's some kind of evil ulterior motive then?

[Russ]

Yes it is. And we are working with anecdotal evidence here which, while vague, shows that people without any huge obstacles to overcome are helped a lot by SEAS. I'm assuming that they already look at everyone on a case-by-case basis, as they should be.

This...confuses me. Not sure what you're saying here.

The people in a position to send their children to private schools are likely to be successful, and intelligent. Their children are more likely to be also intelligent and successful than not.

Because of their socioeconomic status, not because of any innate ability.

[Eriny]

The people in a position to send their children to private schools are likely to be successful, and intelligent. Their children are more likely to be also intelligent and successful than not. And there you have it (in before 'generalisation'. on average, with such a large sample size, it's a fair comment). Social class isn't just random.

Are you saying that people of a high socio-economic status are naturally/biologically more intelligent and successful than those who aren't?

[florey]

"Are you saying that people of a high socio-economic status are naturally/biologically more intelligent and successful than those who aren't?"
That's what I think they're saying. OUTRAGEOUS :O

[Zien]

Going to an "elite private school" right now, that is certainly not the case. Whilst it is true that many are highly intelligent and works hard, there are also many people who treat school with much indifference and their grades are sub-standard as a result.

The wider perception that elite private schools have this highly intelligent aura probably, in my opinion, stems from the environment where we study in class and the standard the teachers hold us to in our work/tests/exams. As a result, a large gap between the smart/hard-working and those who don't achieve as well starts to open up. Yet, you only really ever hear about the top end in terms of academic achievements.

[Russ]

What exactly are you saying "sure" to?

[Russ]

Godwin's law

[Stroodle]

Godwin's law

Haha. Just wiki'd it. That's hilarious

I'll copy the law here for those too lazy to look it up:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

[florey]

Many intelligent people aren't given the chance to be successful, while others are given the chance, but the decisions they make hinder them from being successful.
 I'm a bit biased.
My dad wasn't ever given the chance to be successful. In his version of year 11, he was forced to quit school by the government, and move to the countryside, and he was to stay there for many years. He was doing really well at school...but all that didn't count anymore. After that, he missed out on uni. His younger brother was given the chance to go to university, as by then a new government was in control. Lucky for him he now has a professional job and can send his child to any private school.
I know that nowadays similar circumstances are rare in Australia, but I don't think that it's fair to say that "people in a position to send their children to private schools" are "likely" to be successful and intelligent.

[florey]

Okay Ben, you're such a persistent debater. I think I'll go and hide in my shell now. hahahha

[Eriny]

Hah. I'm a long way away from that. There IS a correlation between perfrmance on intelligence-measuring tests and socio-economic status. And I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be so, if intelligence is linked to success in our society and also the intelligence of parents.

Ah, but who defines intelligence/success? Moreover, who has the luxury of easily obtaining it? IQ measures were designed by people who have a high socio-economic status to measure the kind of intelligence valued by said people. Moreover, I'd bet many people would perform much better on them if they had more leisure time to follow intellectual pursuits rather than if they had to focus on putting food on the table every night.

Here's a similar case: Western nations have a higher GDP than do developing countries. Does this mean that the population of Western nations are, on average, more successful and perhaps even smarter than the populations of developing nations? Or is it that GDP is a very limited measure of success implemented by the same people who do well at such measures and who have such a privileged/luxurious life that they can focus on this measure more than others are able to?

[WonderBunny]

There is a link between IQ scores and socio-economic advantage, but the results of IQ tests are hugely influenced by environmental factors. There has been heartbreaking research comparing children's cognitive scores in early childhood. The scores of high scoring children from low socio-economic groups dropped steadily while the scores of low scoring children from high socio-economic groups rose steadily. Low scoring privileged children overtook the poverty stricken high scorers before they were 6 years old. (It's in the New Scientist if anyone's interested.)
Natural intelligence and ability needs to be nurtured for a person to achieve their full potential. Poor /= genetically inferior. Keeping people out of higher education just entrenches disadvantage so it can continue for another generation.

[gs]

Just wondering can students apply for a few categories of the SEAS?

Disgusting to hear a few stories where people just abuse the scheme.

[Massofbubbles]

Just wondering can students apply for a few categories of the SEAS?

Yep.