Is it time universities showed ENTER the exit?

[teebagger*]

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/is-it-time-universities-showed-enter-the-exit-20091017-h22a.html
Anyone read that yet?

[Gloamglozer]

Hmmm... "Aptitude assessment" - Reminds me all too well of something currently known as the GAT.

[xXNovaxX]

I posted a thread about this few weeks back

http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,16151.0.html

Your post is a development to it though! I hope as Gloamglozer said/suggested that aptitude tests don't become introduced. One GAT is pain enough, to have it COUNT is a whole other issue.

[IntoTheNewWorld]

This is bad because I fail GAT and got 34 on UMAT.

[appianway]

I think it's important to reward students for co-curricular pursuits when seeking university entrance, but I think that too large an emphasis on this criterion could result in students undertaking such activities for the sole purpose of entering a prestigious course.

[xXNovaxX]

I think it's important to reward students for co-curricular pursuits when seeking university entrance, but I think that too large an emphasis on this criterion could result in students undertaking such activities for the sole purpose of entering a prestigious course.

yeah I agree. I don''t know if this is relevant, but the Gov. was in talks to help cut your HECS fees if you undertake volunteering, as much as I would like that it got me wondering...doesn't that defeat the purpose of volunteering? But I guess it does encourage more people to undertake community work.

[polky]

I think the aptitude test, other than being rather redundant since we already have the GAT, is a waste of money.  I rather they used the money to improve school's facilities (so every school has a chemistry lab, for instance) instead of implementing the test.

Even if disadvantaged students (who didn't have access to chemistry labs) do enter University courses thanks to this "equitable" aptitude test, they would have difficulties with University laboratory sessions due to lack of experience with how to use lab equipment, write lab reports etc.  Nothing can take the place of real experience.

[EvangelionZeta]

Aptitude+Analysis of the student's co-curricular activities is what they already do in America, except they have nothing like the ENTER at all.  It's PURELY based on your aptitude+CV (plus an entrance essay thing you write)

I say every system has its advantages and disadvantages.  

@appianway, better students do more co-curricular activities to become more well-rounded individuals than they study all day and become nerds with no social skills, IMO.  If Universities emphasise a need for co-curricular activities in a student's resume over academic ability (ala USA), it leads to more "people" people getting in to the course.  

Even if disadvantaged students (who didn't have access to chemistry labs) do enter University courses thanks to this "equitable" aptitude test, they would have difficulties with University laboratory sessions due to lack of experience with how to use lab equipment, write lab reports etc.  Nothing can take the place of real experience.

Surely a student with the aptitude to get into a course that required the use of chemistry labs would be quick enough to learn the ropes?  (that's an actual question; I don't do science, fail at it and have no idea)

[QuantumJG]

I disagree with what the article is wanting to do. The ENTER by no means is a fair system as students are not on a level playing field, but if we make up a new selection criteria it wont change anything. Ok the guy has a point where dropping say by 0.05 is the difference between getting an offer or not. It was also heartbreaking to see a mum and a daughter ask for advice on whether her daughter could still do the course even if the ENTER was slightly off what was required.

We have the GAT which is the biggest waste of time (I'm sure I failed it) and using some aptitude test sounds like the useless "no child left behind" system in the US. The ENTER is a huge life altering thing as it's putting a rank next to your name and a lot of people feel this is their worth, but in life there will be other things that quantifies self worth so it's not that bad a system and trying to change the system could have a negative impact. My view (and a few others have already put this up) is to try and even out the playing field for everybody, we have a good economy and if we invested more money we could have more than 3 outstanding uni's and literally become a globally competitive country in terms of academia.

Anyway I survived VCE with the ENTER I needed to do my course and so overall I'm happy.

[appianway]

@appianway, better students do more co-curricular activities to become more well-rounded individuals than they study all day and become nerds with no social skills, IMO.  If Universities emphasise a need for co-curricular activities in a student's resume over academic ability (ala USA), it leads to more "people" people getting in to the course.  

Trust me, I know the importance of extra curriculars (I'm overinvolved in them as it is)! However, I do believe we need to consider them, but I think that if we place too much emphasis on them, we run the risk of having students participate solely to gain entrance into university. I think it's much better if students undertake activities to have fun, not to improve their resume... and if students don't harbour a genuine interest in the field, they're not likely to drastically improve their "people skills". I don't think I'm explaning it very well, but I've seen it exemplified on a small scale at my school - there are a few girls who turn up to orchestra because they want to get colours (they're year 9s, so I don't think it's clicked that colours is a "leadership award"), and their attitude really annoys the conductor and wastes a lot of time. I think that if extra curriculars played a major role in determining university places, you'd have a lot more students like this, and to be honest, their people skills wouldn't be much better.

[xXNovaxX]

TBH I don't think extra-curricular activities should be used.

Well not quiet true. It would be GOOD to use it alongside, but not everybody partakes in extra-curricular activities due to lack of interest, cbb factor, work, homework, family etc.

I agree that it should be used because people that undertake music outside of school or whatever for example are demonstrating knowledge/something else, but what about those who DON'T do any....doesn't mean they are any worse/dumber/anti-social/un-interested in education.

Besides those who do extra-curric already have a lot of opportunities e.g. scholarships direcltly targeted at them, chances to go o/s, money prizes, etc. It is not as though we don't RECOGNISE them is my point.

I think the way it is now is okay, as much as we complain, I would hate to end up having the American system *shudders at GAT*

As a side note, it is also amusing to hear Educ Min. Julia Gillard went to USA to establish partnerships with American schools.....it's not as though they are a world role model. In fact they are really behind in many aspects.

Somebody pointed out we should be working with Finland (also maybe Japan, Korea, Switz) to get ideas of how to improve education system

[EvangelionZeta]

@appianway, better students do more co-curricular activities to become more well-rounded individuals than they study all day and become nerds with no social skills, IMO.  If Universities emphasise a need for co-curricular activities in a student's resume over academic ability (ala USA), it leads to more "people" people getting in to the course. 

Trust me, I know the importance of extra curriculars (I'm overinvolved in them as it is)! However, I do believe we need to consider them, but I think that if we place too much emphasis on them, we run the risk of having students participate solely to gain entrance into university. I think it's much better if students undertake activities to have fun, not to improve their resume... and if students don't harbour a genuine interest in the field, they're not likely to drastically improve their "people skills". I don't think I'm explaning it very well, but I've seen it exemplified on a small scale at my school - there are a few girls who turn up to orchestra because they want to get colours (they're year 9s, so I don't think it's clicked that colours is a "leadership award"), and their attitude really annoys the conductor and wastes a lot of time. I think that if extra curriculars played a major role in determining university places, you'd have a lot more students like this, and to be honest, their people skills wouldn't be much better.

Hence the need for "analysis" - ideally, there'd be a referee for all of the activities (I know my friend applying for the US had to get all of his teachers to write a report on him).  If they rock up, simply bludge and make a nuisance of themselves, the teacher writes thema  crappy report and they get owned.  "Analysis" would also entail that different people's co-curric activities will add more to their resume - sports captains or AMus musicians, for instance, will get a lot more added to their worth than somebody who picked up soccer of the violin two years beforehand.  The University of NSW already has a system like this.

TBH I don't think extra-curricular activities should be used.

Well not quiet true. It would be GOOD to use it alongside, but not everybody partakes in extra-curricular activities due to lack of interest, cbb factor, work, homework, family etc.

I agree that it should be used because people that undertake music outside of school or whatever for example are demonstrating knowledge/something else, but what about those who DON'T do any....doesn't mean they are any worse/dumber/anti-social/un-interested in education.

Besides those who do extra-curric already have a lot of opportunities e.g. scholarships direcltly targeted at them, chances to go o/s, money prizes, etc. It is not as though we don't RECOGNISE them is my point.

I think the way it is now is okay, as much as we complain, I would hate to end up having the American system *shudders at GAT*

As a side note, it is also amusing to hear Educ Min. Julia Gillard went to USA to establish partnerships with American schools.....it's not as though they are a world role model. In fact they are really behind in many aspects.

Somebody pointed out we should be working with Finland (also maybe Japan, Korea, Switz) to get ideas of how to improve education system

I wouldn't use "cbb" factor as a good reason for not doing co-curric stuff - educational institutions are looking for people who are willing to contribute, not for people who are too lazy to do anything other than leech.  Homework also isn't an excuse given that many of the 99.95 students are also involved in a plethora of activities; ability to organise time is a mark of maturity.  Lack of interest shouldn't be a real factor - surely most people can find SOMETHING they're interested in.  I'm not sure how family applies, either - elaborate please.

And yes, I'm not saying that a 85.00 ENTER student who is music captain, sports captain and school captain should get precedence of a 99.95 ENTER student who does nothing - just that if the two scores were say, 99.3 and 99.65, it'd be possible to place the former over the latter. 

The other thing is I'm not suggesting anything about the intellectual capacities of people who don't do co-curric - just that Universities will generally find that the first person mentioned above will contribute more to the university as a whole than the second one.

Also, sure, extra-curric people get scholarships targeted at them, but so do people who excel academically.  It's not so much about recognition as value to the University.

Working with Japan to improve the education system would be stupid - I won't go into detail, but I'm sure if I could be bothered most of you would agree.  :p

[xXNovaxX]

But why RE: Japan? They have so many students undertaking in extra-curricular activities, many of which aren't as popular here, as well as students performing extrordinary well! But I see some of the cons associated with it, and dw I wasn't saying the Gov should look to copy Japan, just a thought. Personally I look up to them and their innovation/persistence in succeeding well.

LOL @ my cbb factor =.=*. Umm. Can't really say much there, but regarding family. Sometimes you just cannot find time, especially in today's society.

Looking after siblings, helping your ageing parents, in some families if you are a girl you may be expected to be more with the family (please, for the love of God don't debate me on this one zzz [not directed at you Evangelion Zeta]), you may need to cook/clean/housework, it really comes down to a family by family basis, I cannot generalise.

I mgiht put my contention into perspective.

I perform very well at school (will not reveal marks because dont wanna brag/but PM if absolutely neceessary), yet I do not really undertake outside of school activities. In VCE I feel that I would rather spend my time at work, home, out with mates, and studying. I find that I have a whole  life ahead of me to do sport, chess whatever outside of school.

Therefore I don't find it fair for me to be disadvantaged just because I wish to organise my time this way. And before people say "oh, but u do wel at school so ur ENTER will be high", it is not true, I don't believe exams accurately reflect how you really are.

That was all I was trying to say.

EDIT: What I would think would be really really good idea is this.

There has been substantial evidence of people doing poor at school/low ENTER, but when they go to Uni they do really well. Therefore I think tehre should be a way where you get accepted into Uni (if you have a bad ENTER below the minimum) and if you do badly, they have a right to say okay go away.

That way they can TEST to see if you are more than your ENTER says. I would really like some input on this idea. The Universities don't really have much to lose, and may find themseleves with so many bright students.

Let me expand. For example MANY people in VCE may perform badly coz their school doesn't offer subjects they like, or students may not like economics the way it is taught at VCE. HOWEVER, once they get to Uni, because they are doing a course they really like (wanting to grow up and work in this field) they tend to perform really well, yet their ENTER didn't reflect this.

[appianway]

I wouldn't say that AMus musicians deserve precedence. I question a lot of the people who pass the exam...

My only problem with references is that although they mirror the accomplishments of the individual, they're subjective. Some teachers write gushing reports; others don't emphasise the personal characteristics of the student.

There's also the question of opportunity when considering extra curriculars. Like it or not, students attending certain schools or in lower socio-economic families don't have a chance to participate. Music's expensive. Sport's expensive. In addition, some programs are only offered to high performing schools, meaning that students at the local high don't have the same opportunity to excel. Personally, I think academic achievements don't discriminate against students who've had fewer chances to the same extent. Sure, they're probably less likely to get amazing ENTERs, but at least they're still given the opportunity to vie for a good score.

[EvangelionZeta]

But why RE: Japan? They have so many students undertaking in extra-curricular activities, many of which aren't as popular here, as well as students performing extrordinary well! But I see some of the cons associated with it, and dw I wasn't saying the Gov should look to copy Japan, just a thought. Personally I look up to them and their innocation/persistence in succeeding well.

LOL @ my cbb factor =.=*. Umm. Can't really say much there, but regarding family. Sometimes you just cannot find time, especially in today's society.

Looking after siblings, helping your ageing parents, in some families if you are a girl you may be expected to be more with the family (please, for the love of God don't debate me on this one zzz [not directed at you Evangelion Zeta]), you may need to cook/clean/housework, it really comes down to a family by family basis, I cannot generalise.

I mgiht put my contention into perspective.

I perform very well at school (will not reveal marks because dont wanna brag/but PM if absolutely neceessary), yet I do not really undertake outside of school activities. In VCE I feel that I would rather spend my time at work, home, out with mates, and studying. I find that I have a whole  life ahead of me to do sport, chess whatever outside of school.

Therefore I don't find it fair for me to be disadvantaged just because I wish to organise my time this way. And before people say "oh, but u do wel at school so ur ENTER will be high", it is not true, I don't believe exams accurately reflect how you really are.

That was all I was trying to say.

EDIT: What I would think would be really really good idea is this.

There has been substantial evidence of people doing poor at school/low ENTER, but when they go to Uni they do really well. Therefore I think tehre should be a way where you get accepted into Uni (if you have a bad ENTER below the minimum) and if you do badly, they have a right to say okay go away.

That way they can TEST to see if you are more than your ENTER says. I would really like some input on this idea. The Universities don't really have much to lose, and may find themseleves with so many bright students.

Let me expand. For example MANY people in VCE may perform badly coz their school doesn't offer subjects they like, or students may not like economics the way it is taught at VCE. HOWEVER, once they get to Uni, because they are doing a course they really like (wanting to grow up and work in this field) they tend to perform really well, yet their ENTER didn't reflect this.

The good aspects of Japan's educational are already reflected upon within our private schools - they force student to do sport, get excellent results, etc.  The cons are that Japanese schools don't actually get you into Uni, as each University has its own set of entrance exams.  This then means that students don't take normal school as seriously; they go to a thing called cram school between 5-10ish which prepares them for the University's entrance exam.  Then they rock up to school the next day and sleep in class.  Seriously.

And I can see where you're coming from with your position - my emphasis though is on that academic results should be the most important, just that co-curricular stuff will give you a little "boost" if you will.

@ Appianway, AMus was just an example; nevertheless, you'd have to be truly elitist as a musician to believe that the people who actually obtain it aren't better than 99% of the population. 

Also, with socio-economic backgrounds, co-curricular stuff doesn't necessarily have to be with school.  Playing at a local sports club is affordable for most families.  So is renting an instrument, taking weekly lessons and whatnot.  Academics and co-currics IMO have a similar rate of "disadvantage" in regards to money.