Group of Eight debates university entry level lift

[Mao]

Now, I redirect us to the full report on SES and graduate achievement published by Monash University on their internal data: http://www.monash.edu.au/access/assets/pdf/high-quality-high-access.pdf

Several conclusions can be made:

1. Fig. 1 and 4, the average achievement of students with ATAR below 85 is roughly the same. This suggests that increasing or decreasing the bar by a small amount won't have huge effects on graduate quality. We should therefore let supply and demand work themselves out. The Go8 ought not to try to make degrees a particularly elite achievement, and the HigherEd sector ought not to reduce the cost of degrees by so much that it becomes a zero-risk investment and so dilute the achievement and its value.

2. Table 1, the TAFE/College pathway appears to better prepare students for graduate achievement compared to direct entry.

3. Fig. 6 and 7, the distribution between graduate employment of Go8 vs "average" universities are about the same. Since the Go8 have much higher entry ATAR, this shows the difference in entry ATAR has little effects.

4. Fig. 8 and 9, the distribution of graduate wage shows the same picture as above. Go8 and "average" universities have about the same graduate wage, despite the entry ATAR requirements.

5. Fig. 10 and 11 highlights the main difference between entry ATAR: further education.

From my understanding of the given data, the question really boils down to whether universities' primary function is to perform research, or to produce a skilled workforce? I lean towards the latter, which means ATAR entry should stay where it is.