Biomed clearly-in - 99.00

[Edmund]

This is complete bullshit.  It has to stop.  56% of spots going to SEAS applicants this year.  WHERE IS THE 30% CAP? 
Hard working students are getting completely ripped off by what I would say is a considerable group of students taking advantage of the selection guarantee.  It seriously has to go.

The fact that someone's ATAR is good enough to study Monash Law but not a glorified science degree is a joke.

What's the difference between the last 2 columns?

[mark_alec]

You know the required ATAR is determined by demand; it has nothing to do with the difficulty or value of the course.

[stonecold]

This is complete bullshit.  It has to stop.  56% of spots going to SEAS applicants this year.  WHERE IS THE 30% CAP? 
Hard working students are getting completely ripped off by what I would say is a considerable group of students taking advantage of the selection guarantee.  It seriously has to go.

The fact that someone's ATAR is good enough to study Monash Law but not a glorified science degree is a joke.

What's the difference between the last 2 columns?

23 spots have gone to non-school leavers/mature age students I believe...

[Greatness]

56% of spots going to SEAS applicants this year.

Explains the ridiculously high ATAR.... They probably have a evil scheme that theyre trying to achieve...

[stonecold]

56% of spots going to SEAS applicants this year.

Explains the ridiculously high ATAR.... They probably have a evil scheme that theyre trying to achieve...

Having a selection guarantee is stupid.  It is obviously working for them though...and by that I mean guaranteeing their courses to lesser students and in turn making their degrees and model look like they are in demand and 'popular'.

[vivatequila2]

viva you got 97.1, as though you were ever gettin first round biomed anyway

[ninwa]

viva you got 97.1, as though you were ever gettin first round biomed anyway

banned for trolling

anyone else wanna be a dickhead?

[vea]

I think the SEAS cutoff will increase again this year, hopefully to something higher like 95+ to make it fairer for the students without SEAS..

[taiga]

A mate said it was 92, I'll try find his evidence and post it here

[vea]

A mate said it was 92, I'll try find his evidence and post it here

Whoops this year's intake required 92 for SEAS, I meant next year's intake. I HOPE they increase it to something like 95+ or remove it altogether for the sake of the students who are just missing out.

[Russ]

Having a selection guarantee is stupid.  It is obviously working for them though...and by that I mean guaranteeing their courses to lesser students and in turn making their degrees and model look like they are in demand and 'popular'.

It's more that they're chronically underestimating the numbers applying for the guarantee imo. I might stop by the MDHS today and see if I can find anything out.

[Gloamglozer]

Having a selection guarantee is stupid.  It is obviously working for them though...and by that I mean guaranteeing their courses to lesser students and in turn making their degrees and model look like they are in demand and 'popular'.

It's more that they're chronically underestimating the numbers applying for the guarantee imo. I might stop by the MDHS today and see if I can find anything out.

Yes, I agree with both of you.  Stonecold raises a good point and I thought that through before.  When it was first introduced, I thought it was great and that they are following the government's initiative to produce more people with tertiary degrees.  But delving deeper into the issue, it could also be used as a marketing ploy because I'm sure many long-time AN'ers will know that there are heaps of people not only in Victoria but possibly interstate that associate the Clearly-In with course quality, which as we all know is completely false and a complete misconception just like how every year rumours that VCE English won't be in the top 4 anymore.

But as Russ pointed out, the issue of underestimating is also a problem.  We can tell that because when science rose to 89.05 in 2010, the faculty decided to increase the number of places.  Then Biomed's selection guarantee criteria changed from having an 88+ to 92+ in order to qualify.  Have both these solutions fixed the problem?  I think it remains to be seen.  Whilst I thought the former solution to B.Sci would help a little, I definitely didn't envisage that B.Sci could rise further than 89.05 considering they made, I think, 89 more offers than last year?

So another factor could be that the quality of the applicants have grown over the past few years and combining that with the influx of applications, it's quite easy to see why the Clearly-In has surged.

[kensan]

I was aiming for Biomed but looks incredibly difficult to get in now.. and I don't think I can apply for SEAS too. Even Science has gone up heaps too D:
What would happen next year? Would complaints about 56% of places going to SEAS mean a decrease for 2013?

[grevenchorf]

I was aiming for Biomed but looks incredibly difficult to get in now.. and I don't think I can apply for SEAS too. Even Science has gone up heaps too D:
What would happen next year? Would complaints about 56% of places going to SEAS mean a decrease for 2013?

The only thing they can do is increase the ATAR for selection guarantee for SEAS applicants above 92 or remove it altogether. I'd say they would probably increase it to 94-95.

[Panicmode]

I was aiming for Biomed but looks incredibly difficult to get in now.. and I don't think I can apply for SEAS too. Even Science has gone up heaps too D:
What would happen next year? Would complaints about 56% of places going to SEAS mean a decrease for 2013?

Well, complaints about the 48% that got in on SEAS last year led it to increase to 56% soooo....