Post by: killer_bot on January 14, 2012, 03:28:09 pm
Is this true?
If so, what are some possible explanations for this phenomena?
Post by: aes_999 on January 14, 2012, 03:35:07 pm
or other good state school students :D.
But seriously, i don't even know
if this is true. I'd expect most students
who go to G8 universities in Australia
to be diligent anyway (sort of).
Post by: Shenz0r on January 14, 2012, 03:41:31 pm
Some people think that private school students are "spoon-fed" with huge amounts of resources and good teachers, and that when they have to fend for themselves at uni they might struggle more than their public-school counterparts, who lacked the amount of resources and teaching staff.
But in the end it all comes down to your diligence towards your studies in my opinion...
Post by: Mech on January 14, 2012, 03:46:22 pm
Post by: lexitu on January 14, 2012, 03:48:18 pm
I spoke to a lady coordinating at UoM and she said that students who get in on SEAS generally perform above the average student I think it just goes to show how much effort you put in. :D
I have heard this too, but there have never been statistics provided to back this claim up...
Post by: ninwa on January 14, 2012, 03:53:19 pm
Post by: lexitu on January 14, 2012, 03:57:53 pm
Post by: Stick on January 14, 2012, 04:18:00 pm
Quote
Studies of student university grades suggest that private school students with the same ENTER scores as public school students achieve lower grades at university.
http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/eco/research/seminars/chris-ryan.pdf
Post by: Mech on January 14, 2012, 04:18:41 pm
I have heard this too, but there have never been statistics provided to back this claim up...
I am just going on what I was told.
Also, I'd criticise the Melbourne Access Program quite a bit. From my school, I knew most of the people chosen quite well and they were by no means disadvantaged, in fact on the other end of the scale.
Anecdotal. I know plenty of people who deserved their placements in previous years considering their hardships and demography.
Post by: b^3 on January 14, 2012, 04:30:30 pm
In all schools you will have those who work hard and those who just get lazy and don't try as much as they could, regardless of whether they came from a private or public school. It doesn't depend on what kind of school you come from, it will depend on how hard you motivate yourself resulting in how hard you work.
Also on the access/seas stuff, in some cases I'd say that people I know needed it, otherwise everything would all just be too hard, but then in other cases its just ridiculous. I.e. They can afford two tutors all year and then get in with lower atars because of the area that their school is in.
Post by: lexitu on January 14, 2012, 04:34:36 pm
I have heard this too, but there have never been statistics provided to back this claim up...
I am just going on what I was told.Also, I'd criticise the Melbourne Access Program quite a bit. From my school, I knew most of the people chosen quite well and they were by no means disadvantaged, in fact on the other end of the scale.
Anecdotal. I know plenty of people who deserved their placements in previous years considering their hardships and demography.
Sure, we're dealing on an anecdotal level here - just discussing. I think the problem in my school was it was a special MAP partnership with the school and it didn't feel like there was a lot of consultation/information/opportunity before selection took place. This was before the SEAS applications.
(Sorry for dragging this conversation a bit off-topic by the way.
Post by: TrueTears on January 14, 2012, 04:34:51 pm
Good journal however I can see some problems.QuoteStudies of student university grades suggest that private school students with the same ENTER scores as public school students achieve lower grades at university.
http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/eco/research/seminars/chris-ryan.pdf
Firstly, given the large amounts of parameters involved, this study could and should have incorporated a bit more. The assumption they used was
Although they did justify this by saying:
Quote
the parameters on the school sector (and all other variables) cannot be estimated
consistently. The estimated parameter on the school choice variables will reflect some
combination of the ‘true’ effect of differing school types on the outcomes observed and the
impact of selection effects, to the extent that unobserved factors affect both the school sector
choices made and outcomes achieved by individuals.
So this study isn't a true reflection of the population standard.
Also the hypothesis testing should have been tested at a wider range of significance levels.
So no, this doesn't "prove" that "public school students perform better in uni than private school students". The study illustrates some fact that it is true for significance levels of
protip: never read journals without verifying details yourself, most of the time studies relating to subjects which require a great deal of assumptions are most likely false for the real world.
Post by: Stick on January 14, 2012, 04:37:02 pm
Post by: JellyDonut on January 14, 2012, 04:37:45 pm
I'd expect most studentsNope. Goes out the window when you're in uni
who go to G8 universities in Australia
to be diligent anyway (sort of).
Post by: kamil9876 on January 14, 2012, 04:38:33 pm
Post by: Russ on January 14, 2012, 04:46:46 pm
QuoteStudies of student university grades suggest that private school students with the same ENTER scores as public school students achieve lower grades at university.
http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/eco/research/seminars/chris-ryan.pdf
tl;dr summary pls?
TL;DR - the paper linked is research on independent vs. government vs. catholic schools in years 11/12. The paper finds that independent school students perform better in year 12. Thus is consistent with previous research that finds that public school students with the same ENTER as private school students do better at university - it is harder for public school students to do as well, and thus they are presumably smarter if they achieve the same ENTER.
Also read TT's analysis of the maths modelling, I didn't bother to check that
Post by: Mech on January 14, 2012, 04:48:06 pm
Sure, we're dealing on an anecdotal level here - just discussing. I think the problem in my school was it was a special MAP partnership with the school and it didn't feel like there was a lot of consultation/information/opportunity before selection took place. This was before the SEAS applications.
(Sorry for dragging this conversation a bit off-topic by the way.
Oh, I was not meaning to invalidate your anecdotal proof; I was just suggesting I could offer stories as well. Sorry if I sounded abrasive in tone, as that was not my intention! I am not quite sure what MAP partnership is. Could you explain?
Personally, I applied for SEAS after a lot of nagging from teachers. They said I was entitled to it because I fell into many categories and, really, it would have been stupid if I did not as it would benefit me. So, I applies as they told me and was able to provide all the relevant information (for example, I am on Youth Allowance et cetera). I know plenty of people who just put down they were underrepresented and regional and therefore qualified for lower requirements at Melbourne for biomedicine. They are not really financially disadvantaged at all or have no medical conditions/social problems.
Post by: raveets95 on January 14, 2012, 04:51:40 pm
Post by: Mech on January 14, 2012, 04:54:20 pm
The thing with Access Melbourne is this, can you offer a better solution to the system?
Not off the top of my head, no. It is trying to balance meritocratic principles with equal opportunities principles. It is an ongoing social issue.
Post by: AnnaT on January 14, 2012, 04:56:11 pm
Post by: Russ on January 14, 2012, 05:00:43 pm
Post by: Mech on January 14, 2012, 05:07:23 pm
There's nothing wrong with the SEAS program. If you get people taking advantage of it without truly being affected, that's because the university admissions office isn't doing their job and checking the applications properly.
I know a guy who got a lower ATAR than me, is applying for biomedicine via SEAS and went to a private school, had tutors, parents own businesses and is claiming he is disadvantaged due to being a regional/underrepresented status. I know a few people who do things like this.
Sometimes it seems a tad unfair, but he is entitled to it. I can see why some people think it might be broken. But, yeah, it is the university's job to filter the applications.
Post by: Stick on January 14, 2012, 05:14:30 pm
My cousin has a severely Autistic brother and comes from a financially-disadvantaged background and managed to get an equity scholarship at Shelford, reducing the fees by 50%. She got denied SEAS because of her school.
Post by: Mech on January 14, 2012, 05:16:44 pm
It can be unfair in the reverse too.
My cousin has a severely Autistic brother and comes from a financially-disadvantaged background and managed to get an equity scholarship at Shelford, reducing the fees by 50%. She got denied SEAS because of her school.
Yeah, that's a bit rough. It is by no means a perfect system. I think it comes to the meritocratic and equal opportunities balance I was talking about.
Post by: lexitu on January 14, 2012, 06:00:37 pm
Sure, we're dealing on an anecdotal level here - just discussing. I think the problem in my school was it was a special MAP partnership with the school and it didn't feel like there was a lot of consultation/information/opportunity before selection took place. This was before the SEAS applications.
(Sorry for dragging this conversation a bit off-topic by the way.
Oh, I was not meaning to invalidate your anecdotal proof; I was just suggesting I could offer stories as well. Sorry if I sounded abrasive in tone, as that was not my intention! I am not quite sure what MAP partnership is. Could you explain?
Personally, I applied for SEAS after a lot of nagging from teachers. They said I was entitled to it because I fell into many categories and, really, it would have been stupid if I did not as it would benefit me. So, I applies as they told me and was able to provide all the relevant information (for example, I am on Youth Allowance et cetera). I know plenty of people who just put down they were underrepresented and regional and therefore qualified for lower requirements at Melbourne for biomedicine. They are not really financially disadvantaged at all or have no medical conditions/social problems.
Haha no you're fine, I was agreeing with your point that it was anecdotal - it should be taken cautiously and shouldn't really be generalised.
I am not sure exactly what the nature of the program was but it was some sort of partnership between Melbourne and Northcote High School where they hand-picked (how, I don't know) a group of students and gave them support during VCE (11/12) as well as the normal ATAR discount that is part of the Melbourne Access Program (SEAS).
I too was encouraged to apply under disproportionate representation or something like that. When do you find out if you get in / does it matter anyway?
Post by: Planck's constant on January 14, 2012, 06:38:34 pm
Therefore at uni, a Broadmeadows High School 90 rates to do at least as well as a Scotch 99.9
Post by: EvangelionZeta on January 14, 2012, 06:45:04 pm
Other things being equal (eg intelligence, effort) private school fees buy you a min 10 ATAR percentage points. (no links, sorry, just gut feel)
Therefore at uni, a Broadmeadows High School 90 rates to do at least as well as a Scotch 99.9
...what is this I don't even.
I think there are a lot of Private School kids who get spoonfed into high 80s/low 90s scores who struggle at uni. Such students tend to get by, but also suffer a bit from the "I just need to pass and it'll be ok" mentality. I've never met anybody with a mid-high 90s ATAR from a Private School who's struggled at Uni before though (excepting personal, as opposed to academic circumstances).
Post by: Planck's constant on January 14, 2012, 06:53:20 pm
Other things being equal (eg intelligence, effort) private school fees buy you a min 10 ATAR percentage points. (no links, sorry, just gut feel)
Therefore at uni, a Broadmeadows High School 90 rates to do at least as well as a Scotch 99.9
...what is this
It means that the ATAR score under-rates the ability of a public school student
I think that most people would agree with this
Post by: Mech on January 14, 2012, 06:57:26 pm
Haha no you're fine, I was agreeing with your point that it was anecdotal - it should be taken cautiously and shouldn't really be generalised.
I am not sure exactly what the nature of the program was but it was some sort of partnership between Melbourne and Northcote High School where they hand-picked (how, I don't know) a group of students and gave them support during VCE (11/12) as well as the normal ATAR discount that is part of the Melbourne Access Program (SEAS).
I too was encouraged to apply under disproportionate representation or something like that. When do you find out if you get in / does it matter anyway?
Heh, there was I think I had committed some form of faux pas! Sounds like the Kwong Lee Dow program or something similar? And 16th I find out if I get in. I got above the clearly-in ATAR requirements for last year though. If that is what you were asking?
:)
Post by: WhoTookMyUsername on January 14, 2012, 07:08:52 pm
Other things being equal (eg intelligence, effort) private school fees buy you a min 10 ATAR percentage points. (no links, sorry, just gut feel)
Therefore at uni, a Broadmeadows High School 90 rates to do at least as well as a Scotch 99.9
...what is this
It means that the ATAR score under-rates the ability of a public school student
I think that most people would agree with this
if it's scalar surely a 95 at broadmeadows is equal to 105 at scotch?
while your contention is arguable, putting a random number on it and saying a 90 at broadmeadows is equal to a 99.9 at scotch is ridiculous
Post by: nisha on January 14, 2012, 07:10:16 pm
This is my take on this. If you come from a family that struggles to scrape by every months or is not that well off, then you try to do your best, work hard and try to get further in life. That being said that doesn't mean that there are not students form private schools who do not work just as hard when they get to university.
In all schools you will have those who work hard and those who just get lazy and don't try as much as they could, regardless of whether they came from a private or public school. It doesn't depend on what kind of school you come from, it will depend on how hard you motivate yourself resulting in how hard you work.
Also on the access/seas stuff, in some cases I'd say that people I know needed it, otherwise everything would all just be too hard, but then in other cases its just ridiculous. I.e. They can afford two tutors all year and then get in with lower atars because of the area that their school is in.
Exactly
It all comesdown to the type of person that you are. In the end Macrob/Melbourne High/Balwyn High kids are not the ONLY public school students (not all of them are super-smart) that go to university. But it helps, I guess if your school environment has drilled into you that "study will help" or to encourage high-achievers in all aspects. It hacts as a foundation. But then again, it depends on the person that u are.
Post by: Mariammm on January 14, 2012, 07:12:34 pm
This is my take on this. If you come from a family that struggles to scrape by every months or is not that well off, then you try to do your best, work hard and try to get further in life. That being said that doesn't mean that there are not students form private schools who do not work just as hard when they get to university.
In all schools you will have those who work hard and those who just get lazy and don't try as much as they could, regardless of whether they came from a private or public school. It doesn't depend on what kind of school you come from, it will depend on how hard you motivate yourself resulting in how hard you work.
Also on the access/seas stuff, in some cases I'd say that people I know needed it, otherwise everything would all just be too hard, but then in other cases its just ridiculous. I.e. They can afford two tutors all year and then get in with lower atars because of the area that their school is in.
Exactly
It all comesdown to the type of person that you are. In the end Macrob/Melbourne High/Balwyn High kids are not the ONLY public school students (not all of them are super-smart) that go to university. But it helps, I guess if your school environment has drilled into you that "study will help" or to encourage high-achievers in all aspects. It hacts as a foundation. But then again, it depends on the person that u are.
^^ i completely agree - you just can't generalise
Post by: Eriny on January 14, 2012, 08:47:46 pm
Post by: Mariammm on January 14, 2012, 08:51:24 pm
There is evidence to suggest that if Person A went to a public school and Person B went to a private school, and both got the same ATAR, on average, Person A would get better uni marks than person B. That is to say, if ATAR is held constant, public school students perform better. This paper: http://www.business.curtin.edu.au/files/04_4.pdf is an example of such evidence. Note that the disparity isn't exactly huge on average, but there is one nonetheless and it affirms the value of special entry schemes.
What are the reasons behind that?? I haven't read the paper yet... maybe that will answer my question
Post by: gs on January 15, 2012, 12:11:45 am
This paper: http://www.business.curtin.edu.au/files/04_4.pdf is an example of such evidence. Note that the disparity isn't exactly huge on average, but there is one nonetheless and it affirms the value of special entry schemes.Special entry access schemes are definitely warranted, hopefully this can wake a few people up.
Post by: gemgem49 on January 15, 2012, 01:15:44 am
This is my take on this. If you come from a family that struggles to scrape by every months or is not that well off, then you try to do your best, work hard and try to get further in life. That being said that doesn't mean that there are not students form private schools who do not work just as hard when they get to university.
From what I've seen, I don't necessarily agree with the first part of this. There are some who might use their struggling family as motivation to push themselves into doing better. I guess I would consider myself an example of this.
But I think there is an issue with kids from uneducated, abusive or struggling families who because of their upbringing don't have anyone to instill that motivation in them to do well in the first place. I feel rather than using their situation to motivate them, they often fall short because they haven't been encouraged or taught the importance of education in the first place. Idk, I just feel like even with SEAS, not everyone has the same opportunity to pursue higher education. Which is why an emphasis on welfare for the underprivileged is important (sorry liberals ^__^). SEAS is pretty useless if teens don't care about higher education to even make it to this point. This is from my point of view as someone who has come from a struggling family. Some make it through but many get lost in the cracks. /ramble
SEAS reminds me centrelink. Somehow I wonder HOWWW people got approved for it because their circumstances don't seem to deserve it, especially when I've seen people that in my opinion are more needy, get rejected for it.
Also, what does being 'spoon-fed' actually mean? I went to a public school and I can't understand how this works, exactly. How can teachers spoon feed you the answers any more than a (decent) public school can. My legal studies teacher was always like 'this is what they're looking for in this type of answer, the exam structure will look like this _____". Is 'spoon-feeding' more than this??
Post by: Eriny on January 15, 2012, 12:58:10 pm
There is evidence to suggest that if Person A went to a public school and Person B went to a private school, and both got the same ATAR, on average, Person A would get better uni marks than person B. That is to say, if ATAR is held constant, public school students perform better. This paper: http://www.business.curtin.edu.au/files/04_4.pdf is an example of such evidence. Note that the disparity isn't exactly huge on average, but there is one nonetheless and it affirms the value of special entry schemes.
What are the reasons behind that?? I haven't read the paper yet... maybe that will answer my question
It isn't really elaborated on that much, but the paper says:
"the underperformance of students from Catholic and Independent schools compared
to Government schools at university level is more likely to be a reflection of a correction that
has taken place in terms of relative TER achievement rather than due to the specific school
characteristics that were examined in this paper. In other words, it suggests that the TER of
students from non-Government schools may have been artificially inflated relative to the raw
abilities of these students."
An article from The Guardian also talks about this phenomenon: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/03/state-school-pupils-university
Post by: berryy on January 15, 2012, 03:09:59 pm
There are also those who scrape through into Melb via SEAS (from not reaching the atar requirement). <-- I tend to find that these students fail more than anyone else if i was to generalise
Since your atar ranks you with your peers, it is a good but rough estimate of how you will perform in uni. I know uni kids from MHS/Mcrob/private schools who have failed subjects but they only make up a small amount compared to those with lower atars.
You really shouldnt ask about the school but more about the individual and the potential they have.
Basically, decent atar score = decent uni results. Of course this fluctuates depending on how much you study, whether you enjoy your subjects or whether you party too much
Post by: b^3 on January 15, 2012, 03:31:43 pm
I do see your point here, unfortunately from what I've seen there are some who are not able to live up to their full potential because of this, and may not even make it to university as a result.This is my take on this. If you come from a family that struggles to scrape by every months or is not that well off, then you try to do your best, work hard and try to get further in life. That being said that doesn't mean that there are not students form private schools who do not work just as hard when they get to university.
From what I've seen, I don't necessarily agree with the first part of this. There are some who might use their struggling family as motivation to push themselves into doing better. I guess I would consider myself an example of this.
But I think there is an issue with kids from uneducated, abusive or struggling families who because of their upbringing don't have anyone to instill that motivation in them to do well in the first place. I feel rather than using their situation to motivate them, they often fall short because they haven't been encouraged or taught the importance of education in the first place. Idk, I just feel like even with SEAS, not everyone has the same opportunity to pursue higher education. Which is why an emphasis on welfare for the underprivileged is important (sorry liberals ^__^). SEAS is pretty useless if teens don't care about higher education to even make it to this point. This is from my point of view as someone who has come from a struggling family. Some make it through but many get lost in the cracks. /ramble
SEAS reminds me centrelink. Somehow I wonder HOWWW people got approved for it because their circumstances don't seem to deserve it, especially when I've seen people that in my opinion are more needy, get rejected for it.A BIG +1 to this, a lot of people take advantage of the system while others who really need it get nothing.
Post by: pi on January 15, 2012, 03:34:52 pm
SEAS reminds me centrelink. Somehow I wonder HOWWW people got approved for it because their circumstances don't seem to deserve it, especially when I've seen people that in my opinion are more needy, get rejected for it.A BIG +1 to this, a lot of people take advantage of the system while others who really need it get nothing.
+2, I think the "worst" SEAS is the one about living in a "poor" suburb. Its ridiculous how many people who are actually quite rich take advantage of this, just because they live in a suburb that isn't well-off.
Post by: b^3 on January 15, 2012, 04:13:37 pm
Post by: schnappy on January 15, 2012, 04:18:19 pm
Also, I'd criticise the Melbourne Access Program quite a bit. From my school, I knew most of the people chosen quite well and they were by no means disadvantaged, in fact on the other end of the scale.
This. It's a disgrace.
Post by: Eriny on January 15, 2012, 04:34:25 pm
Students who attend private schools are likely to perform better than public school students in VCE (think of the amount of scummy public schools out there). When you reach Uni, and lets take Melb uni as an example, the majority of students come from schools that did very well overall in VCE.But in the study I linked to, public school students who got in with an ATAR of 70 (so 'scraped through' because of special entry schemes) managed to get, on average, the same first year university results as Catholic school students who got around 75, or private school students who got around a 77. Unfortunately your generalisation does not count as actual evidence.
There are also those who scrape through into Melb via SEAS (from not reaching the atar requirement). <-- I tend to find that these students fail more than anyone else if i was to generalise
In regard to the validity of SEAS generally (and this is not directed at anyone in particular), you might have hundreds of stories of people who you think are guilty 'wroughting' the system. That does not mean that you are aware of their actual circumstances or what their bank balance is, or what advantages or disadvantages they may or may not have had. For all you know, they may have been hiding an illness, or may have been poorer than they seemed - it is impossible for you to just speculate on others' circumstances from afar. Special entry schemes (and centrelink, for that matter) should be better targeted to people who really need those services, but that does necessarily mean that overall their affects are bad or that equity isn't a worthwhile goal. The charge that the way these things are administered aren't necessarily perfect does not outright invalidate them.
Post by: Mech on January 15, 2012, 04:43:25 pm
Post by: nisha on January 15, 2012, 04:59:02 pm
There is evidence to suggest that if Person A went to a public school and Person B went to a private school, and both got the same ATAR, on average, Person A would get better uni marks than person B. That is to say, if ATAR is held constant, public school students perform better. This paper: http://www.business.curtin.edu.au/files/04_4.pdf is an example of such evidence. Note that the disparity isn't exactly huge on average, but there is one nonetheless and it affirms the value of special entry schemes.
Well. Uh. VCE AND University exams are very different things. Different structure, different requirements, different completely. So it is not entirely fair to compare, despite your evidence. I think that is enough said.
Post by: Eriny on January 15, 2012, 05:43:04 pm
Riny, would you agree that it is hard to balance between merit and equity principles in admissions programs? No disagreeing with you, just interested in your opinion. :)I think it is a very difficult balance, which is why people are so frustrated with the system as it is currently. I think it is made even harder by the fact that people who get high results in VCE (for example) and who happen to have also go to a private school, DO work extremely hard and definitely deserve a spot at university if they want it. It's worth pointing out that being a proponent of equity and access schemes doesn't mean that you think that rich people somehow floated through life without facing any challenges. That idea is unrealistic and offensive to people who are financially better off and are talented and hard-working. Likewise, a great achievement isn't diminished just because someone has a privileged background. Yet, there is still a tension between recognising very strong achievement and also recognising that if others were afforded with the same advantages, they would be well-placed to have achieved the same things, or better.
The key is that although the tension exists, you cannot directly compare disadvantage with merit. For instance, the cut-off for a course is 80 and someone who doesn't qualify for SEAS gets a 79, so they don't get in. If someone who does qualify for SEAS gets 75, they might get in. I do feel for the person with a 79 in that position, but I think that it is destructive to think of it as 'that person with a 75 took my spot'. Just as it is destructive to see, for instance, an Indigenous person with a scholarship and think that you should have that money, since your high school results were better. In both cases, no direct competition exists between the more advantaged candidate and the more disadvantaged candidate. I think that's really how people need to think of this issue.
Because merit shouldn't be in competition with disadvantage, I think ultimately a case-by-case evaluation (through personal statements, interviews, referee reports, etc.) is probably the best way to go about giving people below cut-offs entry to university, alongside the ATAR. I feel uneasy about saying that, because essentially you're making disadvantaged applicants jump through extra hoops, but it probably is the best way to ensure a fair system.
Not really sure what your point is. Perhaps you could rephrase?There is evidence to suggest that if Person A went to a public school and Person B went to a private school, and both got the same ATAR, on average, Person A would get better uni marks than person B. That is to say, if ATAR is held constant, public school students perform better. This paper: http://www.business.curtin.edu.au/files/04_4.pdf is an example of such evidence. Note that the disparity isn't exactly huge on average, but there is one nonetheless and it affirms the value of special entry schemes.
Well. Uh. VCE AND University exams are very different things. Different structure, different requirements, different completely. So it is not entirely fair to compare, despite your evidence. I think that is enough said.
Post by: Mech on January 15, 2012, 06:26:19 pm
Because merit shouldn't be in competition with disadvantage, I think ultimately a case-by-case evaluation (through personal statements, interviews, referee reports, etc.) is probably the best way to go about giving people below cut-offs entry to university, alongside the ATAR. I feel uneasy about saying that, because essentially you're making disadvantaged applicants jump through extra hoops, but it probably is the best way to ensure a fair system.
Cheers, Riny. By the way, I do enjoy your posts. I tend to lurk into a thread when I see you post (I know, I am a stalker ;) ). However, I sort of agree with you on everything you said; as I have stated before (I believe in this thread), it is very hard to have a meritocratic system and accommodate the disadvantaged. It seems like some models of admission are very clear about their definitions. For instance, I know the term "underrepresented" is defined by UoM in strict percentage terms; moreover, they have a precise demographic layout of what constitutes regional applicants.
I think with time the technology we have will break down these social barriers and what we perceive as a "disadvantage" will no longer factor into the equation. For instance, with the proliferation of the internet and the online resources available, secondary students can find different explanations and sort of supplement their classes at school as they wish despite not having a tutor in the traditional sense. There is also opportunity for using VOIP software, such as Skype, to conduct tutorials online and break down that barrier of geography. Really, if lecture companies wanted to make their information available to disadvantaged kids, or anyone for that matter, they would have live streams of the lectures online for viewers (maybe at a low rate that was less than say the amount to travel for some people).
For me, the main distinction between the upper and lower echelons of society is the familial situation. Generally speaking, wealthier individuals recognise the importance of academics in achieving a relatively comfortable lifestyle/stability. They live in this niche and wish to propagate this environment for their children and so forth. This is diametrical to some students who come from a familial situation where their parents live off of social benefits and seem relatively content with this situation; the child would be habituated to such a niche, just like the student in the wealthier environment, and may not see the necessity of education. This would mold the student's fundamental views and motivations. The hallmark of a good student is an independent learner, and this is not necessarily encouraged in all instances especially if students have come from a lower socioeconomic background.
I think universities should take the few students who do aspire for more and breaking out of the mold of their families should be encouraged. Equity would be increased if we had all those mechanisms you suggested. These "extra hoops" should be made as simple and accessible as possible, which, arguably, they are not at the moment. Some students do not simply want to lodge paperwork anonymously over the internet, or cannot, and would prefer to sit down and have a talk with a representative and have someone to assist them in getting the paperwork.
Just my two cents or so. ;D
Post by: gemgem49 on January 15, 2012, 10:54:52 pm
Because merit shouldn't be in competition with disadvantage, I think ultimately a case-by-case evaluation (through personal statements, interviews, referee reports, etc.) is probably the best way to go about giving people below cut-offs entry to university, alongside the ATAR. I feel uneasy about saying that, because essentially you're making disadvantaged applicants jump through extra hoops, but it probably is the best way to ensure a fair system.
Cheers, Riny. By the way, I do enjoy your posts. I tend to lurk into a thread when I see you post (I know, I am a stalker ;) ). However, I sort of agree with you on everything you said; as I have stated before (I believe in this thread), it is very hard to have a meritocratic system and accommodate the disadvantaged. It seems like some models of admission are very clear about their definitions. For instance, I know the term "underrepresented" is defined by UoM in strict percentage terms; moreover, they have a precise demographic layout of what constitutes regional applicants.
I think with time the technology we have will break down these social barriers and what we perceive as a "disadvantage" will no longer factor into the equation. For instance, with the proliferation of the internet and the online resources available, secondary students can find different explanations and sort of supplement their classes at school as they wish despite not having a tutor in the traditional sense. There is also opportunity for using VOIP software, such as Skype, to conduct tutorials online and break down that barrier of geography. Really, if lecture companies wanted to make their information available to disadvantaged kids, or anyone for that matter, they would have live streams of the lectures online for viewers (maybe at a low rate that was less than say the amount to travel for some people).
For me, the main distinction between the upper and lower echelons of society is the familial situation. Generally speaking, wealthier individuals recognise the importance of academics in achieving a relatively comfortable lifestyle/stability. They live in this niche and wish to propagate this environment for their children and so forth. This is diametrical to some students who come from a familial situation where their parents live off of social benefits and seem relatively content with this situation; the child would be habituated to such a niche, just like the student in the wealthier environment, and may not see the necessity of education. This would mold the student's fundamental views and motivations. The hallmark of a good student is an independent learner, and this is not necessarily encouraged in all instances especially if students have come from a lower socioeconomic background.
I think universities should take the few students who do aspire for more and breaking out of the mold of their families should be encouraged. Equity would be increased if we had all those mechanisms you suggested. These "extra hoops" should be made as simple and accessible as possible, which, arguably, they are not at the moment. Some students do not simply want to lodge paperwork anonymously over the internet, or cannot, and would prefer to sit down and have a talk with a representative and have someone to assist them in getting the paperwork.
Just my two cents or so. ;D
Third paragraph - exactly what I was trying to say but better worded ^__^ It's hard to break the cycle. Before I met my best friend in early high school I was en route to becoming a high school drop out. I failed nearly everything in year 7 and 8 because I didn't care. Having her to motivate me made so much difference and it sucks that so many kids don't have that at all.
Post by: Mech on January 15, 2012, 11:29:07 pm
Third paragraph - exactly what I was trying to say but better worded ^__^ It's hard to break the cycle. Before I met my best friend in early high school I was en route to becoming a high school drop out. I failed nearly everything in year 7 and 8 because I didn't care. Having her to motivate me made so much difference and it sucks that so many kids don't have that at all.
Thank you. Too kind. :) It can be. I see some poor kids that came to school with no lunch, no books, scruffy as anything and they would mostly fall asleep in class. I also had a stint in a school with a high population of Indigenous students, but that was when I lived in NSW. The Indigenous kids lived very nomadic lives, in some sense. They were constantly moving back and forth between two local villages/towns and the parents had never had a formal education; I do not blame them for not wanting to show up to school when they could have spent the day at home helping their parents or playing down the river, as their parents never had the expectation for them to go to school.
I am not stating that the Indigenous community was uninterested in the well being of their children, they just did not place education as we define it as so important. It was mostly expected they knew the stories of their people and about the local landscape so they could hunt and want not. Met some really interesting people. One elder came to our school and would talk to us. Very amusing chap. Some of the Indigenous kids looked up to him, which was very good. Provided them a role model at school.
Post by: Russ on January 16, 2012, 12:53:27 pm
Well. Uh. VCE AND University exams are very different things. Different structure, different requirements, different completely. So it is not entirely fair to compare, despite your evidence. I think that is enough said.
It is completely fair to compare (have you sat a university exam?)