Monash 2013/2014/2015 umat cutoff predictions?

[Planck's constant]

won't monash be going melbourne model soon, thats what ive heard.

I find it very disconcerting that Melbourne may have succeeded in completely destroying tertiary education in this country.  :/

They must be doing something right because demand for places exploded this year (as illustrated by the Clearly-IN ATARs) .

.

Yeah...nah. Offering ridiculous amounts of places to SEAS applicants and then going, LOOK HOW HIGH OUR ATAR IS FOR NON-SEAS is not "demand exploding"; it is letting in students with lesser scores in preference to some with higher scores raising the overall ATAR cut-off.

I apologise for letting facts get in the way of a good story, but the following 2012 stats clearly show that there is DAYLIGHT between UoM and Monash.

38271 University Of Melbourne (The) Parkville Science
Clearly-In ATAR:  90.15
%Below Clearly-In: 24.51
Year 12 Offers: 1763
Total Offers: 1947
 
28451 Monash University Clayton Science
Clearly-In ATAR: 80.05
%Below Clearly-In: 36.23
Year 12 Offers: 608
Total Offers: 791

[thushan]

Uh uh. Your contention is that UoM is 'doing something right' based on those stats? Whilst I don't disagree with the Melbourne Model on principle (I just wished it was offered as an option rather than a requirement), and it would become really really good once it is fixed and refined a little to reflect the American system more, I don't think those stats prove that Melb is doing something right.

ATAR cutoffs depend on three things: supply, demand and minimum ATAR set by uni - not necessarily the quality of the course. As supply increases and more students are able to get in, ATAR cutoff would naturally decrease, irrespective of whether the course is good or not. As demand increases (which may be due to the quality of course, reputation of the uni or even just clever marketing strategies, or just the fact that Melbourne is at an overall very convenient location for people all over the metro area - this almost convinced me to choose Melbourne BSc+MD over Monash MBBS) the ATAR cutoff would naturally increase. Minimum ATAR set by uni may or may not reflect course quality/demand. It may set a high ATAR minimum because the course is genuinely difficult, or simply as a marketing tool (excellent example is Biomedicine, which is essentially an integrated science degree where most of ur subjects are picked for you, and has a minimum ATAR of 95, as opposed to Science's 85).

So Argo, Melbourne may be doing something right, it may be doing something wrong, but your ATAR stats don't prove your case.

[Panicmode]

won't monash be going melbourne model soon, thats what ive heard.

I find it very disconcerting that Melbourne may have succeeded in completely destroying tertiary education in this country.  :/

They must be doing something right because demand for places exploded this year (as illustrated by the Clearly-IN ATARs) .

.

Yeah...nah. Offering ridiculous amounts of places to SEAS applicants and then going, LOOK HOW HIGH OUR ATAR IS FOR NON-SEAS is not "demand exploding"; it is letting in students with lesser scores in preference to some with higher scores raising the overall ATAR cut-off.

I apologise for letting facts get in the way of a good story, but the following 2012 stats clearly show that there is DAYLIGHT between UoM and Monash.

38271 University Of Melbourne (The) Parkville Science
Clearly-In ATAR:  90.15
%Below Clearly-In: 24.51
Year 12 Offers: 1763
Total Offers: 1947
 
28451 Monash University Clayton Science
Clearly-In ATAR: 80.05
%Below Clearly-In: 36.23
Year 12 Offers: 608
Total Offers: 791

True, I should apologise for inflating the facts; just ticked about what happened with biomed tbh.

[Russ]

Biomedicine is harder than Science and the 95 cutoff is reasonably justified.

[Panicmode]

Biomedicine is harder than Science and the 95 cutoff is reasonably justified.

Russ, it was a 99 cut-off for non-SEAS; and a 92 cutoff for SEAS.

95 for KLD but i doubt that's what you meant.

EDIT:

Or did you mean minimum ATAR? I don't see how that's relevant when they let people in with a score below that...

[Planck's constant]

Uh uh. Your contention is that UoM is 'doing something right' based on those stats? Whilst I don't disagree with the Melbourne Model on principle (I just wished it was offered as an option rather than a requirement), and it would become really really good once it is fixed and refined a little to reflect the American system more, I don't think those stats prove that Melb is doing something right.

ATAR cutoffs depend on three things: supply, demand and minimum ATAR set by uni - not necessarily the quality of the course. As supply increases and more students are able to get in, ATAR cutoff would naturally decrease, irrespective of whether the course is good or not. As demand increases (which may be due to the quality of course, reputation of the uni or even just clever marketing strategies, or just the fact that Melbourne is at an overall very convenient location for people all over the metro area - this almost convinced me to choose Melbourne BSc+MD over Monash MBBS) the ATAR cutoff would naturally increase. Minimum ATAR set by uni may or may not reflect course quality/demand. It may set a high ATAR minimum because the course is genuinely difficult, or simply as a marketing tool (excellent example is Biomedicine, which is essentially an integrated science degree where most of ur subjects are picked for you, and has a minimum ATAR of 95, as opposed to Science's 85).

So Argo, Melbourne may be doing something right, it may be doing something wrong, but your ATAR stats don't prove your case.

thushan, there is no way you can look at those stats and not conclude that in the minds of prospective students at least,

UoM >>>>>>> Monash

In Science, UoM offered nearly 3 times as many places as Monash, admitted a smaller percentage below Clearly-In and yet there was a a huge difference in the ATAR cut-offs.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Monash had offered the same number of places and had restricted the the %Below Clearly-In to the same level as UoM ?. The Clearly-In ATAR would have dropped in the 60's !



.

[Planck's constant]

True, I should apologise for inflating the facts; just ticked about what happened with biomed tbh.

I cannot believe what has happened in UoM Biomed, either.
Considering how little assurance Biomed students get for a place in the MD, the 99 ATAR cut-off is insane.
But if anyhting, this also supports my claim that UoM has shot up in popularity this year

.

[Panicmode]

True, I should apologise for inflating the facts; just ticked about what happened with biomed tbh.

I cannot believe what has happened in UoM Biomed, either.
Considering how little assurance Biomed students get for a place in the MD, the 99 ATAR cut-off is insane.
But if anyhting, this also supports my claim that UoM has shot up in popularity this year

.

However, in this case, the fact that 56% got under the clearly in does indicate somewhat unfair admission policies which did inflate the ATAR.

However, this doesn't mean I was right about any of the other undergrad degrees.

[Russ]

Biomedicine is harder than Science and the 95 cutoff is reasonably justified.

Russ, it was a 99 cut-off for non-SEAS; and a 92 cutoff for SEAS.

95 for KLD but i doubt that's what you meant.

EDIT:

Or did you mean minimum ATAR? I don't see how that's relevant when they let people in with a score below that...

I was referring to the minimum ATAR because that's what Thushan was talking about and what universities typically use as a measure of course "difficulty" to allow students entry. They let students in with scores below 95 because they assume those students were capable of 95 but were negatively affected, so it's a pretty reasonable comparison for me to make

[thushan]

Uh uh. Your contention is that UoM is 'doing something right' based on those stats? Whilst I don't disagree with the Melbourne Model on principle (I just wished it was offered as an option rather than a requirement), and it would become really really good once it is fixed and refined a little to reflect the American system more, I don't think those stats prove that Melb is doing something right.

ATAR cutoffs depend on three things: supply, demand and minimum ATAR set by uni - not necessarily the quality of the course. As supply increases and more students are able to get in, ATAR cutoff would naturally decrease, irrespective of whether the course is good or not. As demand increases (which may be due to the quality of course, reputation of the uni or even just clever marketing strategies, or just the fact that Melbourne is at an overall very convenient location for people all over the metro area - this almost convinced me to choose Melbourne BSc+MD over Monash MBBS) the ATAR cutoff would naturally increase. Minimum ATAR set by uni may or may not reflect course quality/demand. It may set a high ATAR minimum because the course is genuinely difficult, or simply as a marketing tool (excellent example is Biomedicine, which is essentially an integrated science degree where most of ur subjects are picked for you, and has a minimum ATAR of 95, as opposed to Science's 85).

So Argo, Melbourne may be doing something right, it may be doing something wrong, but your ATAR stats don't prove your case.

thushan, there is no way you can look at those stats and not conclude that in the minds of prospective students at least,

UoM >>>>>>> Monash

In Science, UoM offered nearly 3 times as many places as Monash, admitted a smaller percentage below Clearly-In and yet there was a a huge difference in the ATAR cut-offs.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Monash had offered the same number of places and had restricted the the %Below Clearly-In to the same level as UoM ?. The Clearly-In ATAR would have dropped in the 60's !



.

You're right, and I admitted it before ;P in that post. I said "reputation of the uni"

[Planck's constant]

Uh uh. Your contention is that UoM is 'doing something right' based on those stats? Whilst I don't disagree with the Melbourne Model on principle (I just wished it was offered as an option rather than a requirement), and it would become really really good once it is fixed and refined a little to reflect the American system more, I don't think those stats prove that Melb is doing something right.

ATAR cutoffs depend on three things: supply, demand and minimum ATAR set by uni - not necessarily the quality of the course. As supply increases and more students are able to get in, ATAR cutoff would naturally decrease, irrespective of whether the course is good or not. As demand increases (which may be due to the quality of course, reputation of the uni or even just clever marketing strategies, or just the fact that Melbourne is at an overall very convenient location for people all over the metro area - this almost convinced me to choose Melbourne BSc+MD over Monash MBBS) the ATAR cutoff would naturally increase. Minimum ATAR set by uni may or may not reflect course quality/demand. It may set a high ATAR minimum because the course is genuinely difficult, or simply as a marketing tool (excellent example is Biomedicine, which is essentially an integrated science degree where most of ur subjects are picked for you, and has a minimum ATAR of 95, as opposed to Science's 85).

So Argo, Melbourne may be doing something right, it may be doing something wrong, but your ATAR stats don't prove your case.

thushan, there is no way you can look at those stats and not conclude that in the minds of prospective students at least,

UoM >>>>>>> Monash

In Science, UoM offered nearly 3 times as many places as Monash, admitted a smaller percentage below Clearly-In and yet there was a a huge difference in the ATAR cut-offs.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Monash had offered the same number of places and had restricted the the %Below Clearly-In to the same level as UoM ?. The Clearly-In ATAR would have dropped in the 60's !



.

You're right, and I admitted it before ;P in that post. I said "reputation of the uni"

Obviously, very little of the above applies to you personally (or me for that matter), because you had real choices and guarantees.

But in general, considering the 'no-guarantee' nature of their undergraduate degrees, the UoM has clearly asserted itself as the go-to place in the minds of students.
Given that competition in coming years between undergraduates for graduates spots at UoM will be fierce,  it is amazing that  more people than ever are prepared to give it a go.
This tells me that the UoM is attracting the competitive and confident type of student, which at the very least will help raise standards there even further.

Anyway, thats how I interpret the situation.
I could be wrong

[jmosh002]

Does anyone think the 2013/2014 Umat cutoff will rise or drop (at Monash) - due to the abolishment of second round interviews (appart from 99.95)

[Truck]

Uh uh. Your contention is that UoM is 'doing something right' based on those stats? Whilst I don't disagree with the Melbourne Model on principle (I just wished it was offered as an option rather than a requirement), and it would become really really good once it is fixed and refined a little to reflect the American system more, I don't think those stats prove that Melb is doing something right.

ATAR cutoffs depend on three things: supply, demand and minimum ATAR set by uni - not necessarily the quality of the course. As supply increases and more students are able to get in, ATAR cutoff would naturally decrease, irrespective of whether the course is good or not. As demand increases (which may be due to the quality of course, reputation of the uni or even just clever marketing strategies, or just the fact that Melbourne is at an overall very convenient location for people all over the metro area - this almost convinced me to choose Melbourne BSc+MD over Monash MBBS) the ATAR cutoff would naturally increase. Minimum ATAR set by uni may or may not reflect course quality/demand. It may set a high ATAR minimum because the course is genuinely difficult, or simply as a marketing tool (excellent example is Biomedicine, which is essentially an integrated science degree where most of ur subjects are picked for you, and has a minimum ATAR of 95, as opposed to Science's 85).

So Argo, Melbourne may be doing something right, it may be doing something wrong, but your ATAR stats don't prove your case.

thushan, there is no way you can look at those stats and not conclude that in the minds of prospective students at least,

UoM >>>>>>> Monash

In Science, UoM offered nearly 3 times as many places as Monash, admitted a smaller percentage below Clearly-In and yet there was a a huge difference in the ATAR cut-offs.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Monash had offered the same number of places and had restricted the the %Below Clearly-In to the same level as UoM ?. The Clearly-In ATAR would have dropped in the 60's !



.

You're right, and I admitted it before ;P in that post. I said "reputation of the uni"

Obviously, very little of the above applies to you personally (or me for that matter), because you had real choices and guarantees.

But in general, considering the 'no-guarantee' nature of their undergraduate degrees, the UoM has clearly asserted itself as the go-to place in the minds of students.
Given that competition in coming years between undergraduates for graduates spots at UoM will be fierce,  it is amazing that  more people than ever are prepared to give it a go.
This tells me that the UoM is attracting the competitive and confident type of student, which at the very least will help raise standards there even further.

Anyway, thats how I interpret the situation.
I could be wrong

Monash medicine = one of the most competitive courses in the country.
Monash law = requires 98+ ATAR's for almost all variations of the double degree.

With the exception of Biomedicine, Monash takes almost all the very high achieving (ATAR that is 98/99+) students in Victoria. There are also numerous 93+ courses i.e. Commerce/Engineering and Commerce/Arts. Comparing a direct Bachelor of Science at Monash vs. Bachelor of Science at Melboune is very misleading as most students who go to Monash will take a double degree, since that is something Melbourne does not offer them.

If you want to do Law, Medicine or Engineering and you can get into Monash, then on the merits of the course alone Melbourne offers no advantage (ignoring travel times etc). When it comes to degrees like Arts/Commerce/Science, Melbourne may be more competitive on an individual basis, but Monash is just as competitive through the double degrees it offers.

[pi]

Does anyone think the 2013/2014 Umat cutoff will rise or drop (at Monash) - due to the abolishment of second round interviews (appart from 99.95)

It'll drop for this year and then rise as per usual.

[Russ]

Don't start this argument again please...