ATAR Notes: Forum
National Education => General National Education Discussion => Topic started by: Joseph41 on April 27, 2018, 12:59:06 pm
-
Did anybody read this article? I found it pretty interesting.
I honestly don't know if I agree with this part:
Dr Finkel said the perception that the ATAR rewarded easier subjects was having a detrimental impact on the take-up of STEM courses.
Is there actually a perception that easier subjects are rewarded? I'd suggest the opposite if anything.
-
I'd suggest the opposite if anything.
Agree.
I've never been a fan of the ATAR in general. It is a small snapshot of a much bigger picture. It doesn't measure a lot of characteristics about a person and their potential ability. Therefore I don't agree with this part:
As a tool for university selection, ATAR might be fantastic.
I am a perfect example of why I don't agree with it. I have told this story many times, but I personally didn't get a great ATAR and based on my achievements to-date in tertiary education I don't think it's accurate whatsoever (obviously this says alot about me and not the system itself but I thought it'd be important to use a personal example). It measures mainly 1-2 years of study and isn't even based on merit, so... I think when removed from that peer-pressured school environment, people have the ability to change and start to focus on themselves and their own priorities.
The disagreement arises from concern the ATAR motivates students to pick HSC or VCE subjects based on how well their scores will "scale", or convert, into their final ranking.
This is very relevant to alot of users on here, along with VCE students in general. Picking based on scaling rather than interest / future aspirations.
Dr Finkel said the perception that the ATAR rewarded easier subjects was having a detrimental impact on the take-up of STEM courses.
I don't think the ATAR should be blamed for this. If anything, it's the lack of promotion in the earlier years and current perception of difficulty that are barriers to the take-up. Some schools are starting to implement STEM-based programs but when you have a lack of funding (e.g. most public schools) and lack of priorities (e.g. prioritising certain key areas over others particularly in the middle years)... then of course there is going to be a lack of interest because students have not been exposed to it, and are relying heavily on pre-conceived ideas/perceptions.
One example: I find it absolutely absurd that the focus on digital technologies has only started happening recently. A discipline-specific Digitech program has the potential to incorporate so many of those 21C skills (e.g. creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, problem solving etc) in just one subject. Also leads to teacher ability as well... at my old school if I didn't intervene, they would've used textbooks for an IT class which imo is shocking.
We did not come across anybody who was capable of explaining it to us
I feel you, Dr Finkel.
but one "extreme" option would be to abolish the ATAR in favour of the US system whereby individual universities manage their own entrance schemes.
I wouldn't mind this. But then.. this creates equity issues I suppose. Then again.. when you think about it.. the ATAR itself isn't equitable and doesn't consider many factors (e.g. socioeconomic - students with the ability to pay for private tutoring vs. those who cant etc).
-
Just on the "we couldn't find anybody who could explain it to us" issue, is this a flaw of the system itself, or of education of the system?
Admittedly the procedures used to determine the ATAR aren't absolutely simple, but I do think they do a decent job overall.
-
I honestly don't know if I agree with this part:
Is there actually a perception that easier subjects are rewarded? I'd suggest the opposite if anything.
I’ve never heard of anyone doing an easier subject because they think it would help their ATAR, but I’ve heard the opposite quite a lot.
Edit: Also no system is going to be perfect, I would say that we’re better off having many different options for entry, which is becoming more common - although a lot of people don’t know much about them.
-
isn't it already simple?
do the prerequisites for your course ---> obtain a score above the threshold -----> entry
I'll play devil's advocate for the idea that students are rewarded for easy subjects.
If you are a extreme - extreme top end student It's easier to score in the high end 40's and 50's from the level of competitiveness. Most 50's don't get scaled up significantly but some are easier and harder than others to obtain. Also of these "easy" subjects they then get barely scaled down at the top end however if you are in the middle or lower band you aren't "rewarded". Obviously this would be generalising a little by taking the population as a whole so may not reflect a certain individual.
ATAR motivates students to pick HSC or VCE subjects based on how well their scores will "scale", or convert, into their final ranking.
If this is the main argument whoever it is they are pretty lost since we should be able to rectify it. I think we just need teacher's who actually understand the vce system and want to teach you how it works - I know a lot of mine were pretty clueless. Scaling is needed to create equity
-
I'm not sure I agree with the statement in the opening post, although there are students who pick subjects that they think would require less work to achieve a 40+ - I know of several people I did VCE with who used this reasoning to pick subjects such as Bus Man, Further, etc. (whether it's actually easier to score well in these subjects is a moot point).
I definitely agree that the system should be changed, though. I personally found that absolutely nothing from year 12 prepared me for uni, and if anything, that the structure of year 12 and the way things are done was (and is) detrimental to the ability to do well (that is, if you stick with the year 12 mentality in uni). IMO I find uni scoring a lot fairer and reflective of my efforts than anything in high school (plus, I find it a lot easier to understand). Sure, I scored highly in high school, but that was because I knew how to play the system. In uni (or at least, in my course), you can't play the system, and the effort you put in tends to be directly reflected in your scores. Now when I do well at uni, I feel like I've earned it and I feel prouder of my achievements, because I know that I worked hard. I struggled a bit in year 12 knowing I was scoring a lot higher than some peers who put in a lot more effort than I did.
There should be a system that encourages students to pick things that they're interested in and encourages them to find and explore their passions, rather than pressuring them to pick subjects that might reflect more favourably on their scores or require less effort in order to get a good score.
(Sorry if this went off on a tangent)
-
There should be a system that encourages students to pick things that they're interested in and encourages them to find and explore their passions, rather than pressuring them to pick subjects that might reflect more favourably on their scores or require less effort in order to get a good score.
Isn't that what the current system intends to do, though?
-
Isn't that what the current system intends to do, though?
I'm sure it intends to, and perhaps it is schools focusing on getting good results that changes things, but I think a lot of people end up being pushed to select subjects that will get them into a course or that people think they'll do well in. What if someone is really interested in like, specialist maths, but their school doesn't let them because they didn't average 75% in their tests in year 10 or something?
-
I think one of the real dangers of this discussion is that, to my knowledge, nobody has come up with a viable alternative for the ATAR. Suggestions that it should be simplified are also quite concerning. In the wake of this, there was someone who popped up in the media in defence of the ATAR (can't for the life of me remember who), who said that the complexity of the ATAR exists to make it fairer. Take away the complexity of the ATAR, insofar as scaling etc is concerned and you end up with a score that rewards people for taking easier subjects and that will see disadvantage abound.
-
semi-related question re scaling.
The education minister advises students not to pick subjects based on their scaling.
Yet languages such as Latin are artificially scaled even more than they should, so as to motivate students to select them.
Am I right in thinking there’s something funny going on?
-
I think one of the real dangers of this discussion is that, to my knowledge, nobody has come up with a viable alternative for the ATAR. Suggestions that it should be simplified are also quite concerning. In the wake of this, there was someone who popped up in the media in defence of the ATAR (can't for the life of me remember who), who said that the complexity of the ATAR exists to make it fairer. Take away the complexity of the ATAR, insofar as scaling etc is concerned and you end up with a score that rewards people for taking easier subjects and that will see disadvantage abound.
Agreed! I'd also like to add that it's a double edged sword!
Many people pick subjects based on scaling (E.g. higher level maths, higher level English and the sciences). This is counter productive! Sure people can get higher ATARs, but then there are lots of people that struggle as they are not suited to that subject and are picking it up for nefarious reasons (ironically, that doesn't help anyone get a "better" atar). It doesn't help society either.
If someone picks a difficult subject and fails,... What's the point? They would be better off picking a subject like music and smashing it!
Moderation based on ranks okay! Scaling based on "difficulty", should go out the window =)
-
If someone picks a difficult subject and fails,... What's the point? They would be better off picking a subject like music and smashing it!
hmm at least for VCE music performance is actually super competitive (and doesn't scale well), although I didn't do the subject, I know heaps of people who have gone up to Grade 8 AMEB/AMusA along with high grades in theory for sub 40 scores (whilst killing all their other subjects like spec/methods/chem).
Moderation based on ranks okay! Scaling based on "difficulty", should go out the window =)
For vce scaling isn't based on difficulty although a common misconception - it is based on the strength of the cohort in their other subjects, although this is a good system it doesn't help for some subjects like literature and music which are competitive but bad scaling due to various reasons.
semi-related question re scaling.
The education minister advises students not to pick subjects based on their scaling.
Yet languages such as Latin are artificially scaled even more than they should, so as to motivate students to select them.
Am I right in thinking there’s something funny going on?
yeah for that the actual aim is to increase the number of students that study second languages hence the extra 5 points.
-
Given that there needs to be way of ranking students for tertiary entrance and that tertiary education is a continuation of secondary education, the ATAR system makes sense. Ultimately, it rewards work ethic and challenges students to overcome stress and other difficulties that may arise in life. While socioeconomic factors come into play, I think there are good compensatory mechanisms that exist at the moment. I haven’t heard of any feasible and fairer alternatives.
-
If someone picks a difficult subject and fails,... What's the point? They would be better off picking a subject like music and smashing it!
Nah they wouldn't be better off picking up a subject like music, or any creative, "low scaling" subject for that matter. A big reason why these subjects scale badly is too many people picking them up thinking that they're easy and not putting in enough effort to do well, then dragging everyone else down.
If theres one thing that I have realised from tutoring is difficulty is definitely subjective. I've had some students who can't understand history concepts that seem super basic to me, however on the flip side I'm sure there are some very "easy" chemistry concepts that would go completely over my head. So imo it doesn't make sense to preference some subjects over another based on difficulty. Though scaling isn't meant to directly target "easy" subjects, and is meant to look at the cohorts performance in other subjects, imo it kinda becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy for the reason I mentioned above. The stigma surrounding certain subjects that they're easy (even though many are really really not) encourage students who don't really care to pick them up because they believe it'll be less work (its not). Ends up hurting everyone when they end up not performing well. These "easy" subjects now get the new moniker of "low scaling", which discourages the more dedicated students from picking it up for fear it'll affect them overall. Obviously it's not as simple as that, but I think it definitely has an impact. Thats why extension subjects scale well, because you're less likely to get the type of students who don't care about the HSC doing an extension subject.
The focus should be on encouraging students to pick subjects that they are passionate about, as many here have already mentioned. I think combatting the stigma surrounding the "easy" subjects would definitely help. In our first drama lesson my teacher spent 15-20 mins explaining how hard the subject is, and how much work we were going to have to do (3-4 days a week morning rehearsal before school + 3-4 lunch times a week woohoo!) just to stay afloat - quite a few people dropped right after that lecture.
-
-snip-
statistically shouldn't all that stuff cancel each other out so nobody is really being unfairly scaled down. If more people pick the "easy" subjects and don't try in those subjects in addition to less of the "dedicated students" choosing not to do those subjects due to the inherent stigma- obviously results in it being easier for students to do well in them(getting higher percentiles).
-
statistically shouldn't all that stuff should cancel each other out so nobody is really being unfairly scaled down. If more people pick the "easy" subjects and don't try in those subjects in addition to less of the "dedicated students" choosing not to do those subjects due to the inherent stigma- obviously results in it being easier for students to do well in them(getting higher percentiles).
Theoretically maybe, but I don't think it has worked out that way (at least not for HSC, can't really comment for VCE). In comparison to English Advanced, English Standard has a much lower percentage of students getting band 6s despite being "easier". When I say that the scaling is affected by too many students who don't try, I mean the type of students who don't try in any of their subjects (you're more likely to find one of these students in an "easy" subject, than you are in ext. maths, physics, etc.), not only that specific subject. A student that just doesn't care about the HSC overall. This is going to have an impact on scaling - even though it may be easier for a student to do well in comparison to the bludgy students in a subject, they may still be dragged down when compared to other subjects with more competitive students - you often have to get quite a high mark in a lot of these subjects to not be affected (and since many of these subjects are actually quite hard, this isn't always easy). This is just my interpretation of the scaling/ATAR system though, which as we've established is pretty confusing aha
-
Theoretically maybe, but I don't think it has worked out that way (at least not for HSC, can't really comment for VCE). In comparison to English Advanced, English Standard has a much lower percentage of students getting band 6s despite being "easier". When I say that the scaling is affected by too many students who don't try, I mean the type of students who don't try in any of their subjects (you're more likely to find one of these students in an "easy" subject, than you are in ext. maths, physics, etc.), not only that specific subject. A student that just doesn't care about the HSC overall. This is going to have an impact on scaling - even though it may be easier for a student to do well in comparison to the bludgy students in a subject, they may still be dragged down when compared to other subjects with more competitive students - you often have to get quite a high mark in a lot of these subjects to not be affected (and since many of these subjects are actually quite hard, this isn't always easy). This is just my interpretation of the scaling/ATAR system though, which as we've established is pretty confusing aha
yeah idk about the technicalities of HSC but in VCE you won't be getting screwed for choosing "easy" subjects although there is a lot less room for error or having a bad exam day imo.
-
I found this pretty interesting:
The paper Crunching the number: exploring the use and usefulness of the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) reports that just one in four students are entering university undergraduate courses based on their ATAR, suggesting a huge contrast to the importance placed on ATAR in schools.
Source.
NOTE: The figures are argued to be misleading later in the article. It's an interesting read.
-
I found this pretty interesting:
Source.
NOTE: The figures are argued to be misleading later in the article. It's an interesting read.
Yeah hugely misleading figures. It counts course transfers in the stats, of which there are a fairly enormous amount. Makes it really hard to make anything from these figures tbh.
-
If we assume that 75% get into uni without the ATAR (but the stats they are obviously not correct) why would you need to remove it, in this case no one is impeded by it - if you don't want an ATAR you don't need to get it and anyone who wants to can (again assuming that 75% get into uni without the ATAR LOL) so not too sure in the point they are making.