Is it time universities showed ENTER the exit?

[GoodGuys]

yes!!!

[appianway]

I know that most musicians who attain AMus are decent, but the grade that someone's accomplished isn't always indicative of their talent. I know some people who passed AMus who play much worse than their counterparts undertaking 8th grade. In saying that, I also know some people who've attained AMus who produce a beautiful sound.

I still think that it's expensive to pursue extra-curricular activities. Take music. Let's say you manage to get a cheap deal and can rent a violin for $50 per term. Let's also say that you have half hour lessons (which, let's face it, aren't enough for most people to accomplish much) per week for 40 weeks of the year at $30 per lesson, which is the standard rate. That works out to $1400 per year without exams or music purchases. On top of that, most students who wanted to attain high level orchestral experience out of school would have to join Melbourne Youth Music, which costs around $600.

I'm not into sport, but I presume that the costs for uniforms, equipment and tours would add up when people are competing at a high level.

I feel truly lucky that I'm able to pursue my interests beyond the classroom, but I know a lot of people who just can't afford it. It'd be unfair if they were disadvantaged further in the selection process for university. Sure, consider the activities that people do. But don't emphasise it to the extent that it discriminates against those who don't have the opportunity.

[EvangelionZeta]

1. Not saying that they need to be PARTICULARLY accomplished to receive a boost.  It doesn't matter how crap AMus people might potentially be; the fact is that they passed AMus.  It's like discounting the 99.95 kids who just got lucky on the day of the exam or whatever.

2. Half hour lessons are enough to get you to say grade 5-6 level.  We're not looking for primarily is interest - they don't have to be concert pianists for their musical talent to give them some sort of backing.  MYM is basically just another co-curric activity on top of being a musician.  Anyway, I'm fairly sure most middle class families can cope with music quite easily, and even slightly lower middle class families shouldn't have much a problem. 

3. Again, you don't need to be one of the AFL Junior league players or whatever - just have an interest and it shows that they're interesting people.  If they're an elite sportsman, like MYM, count it as an extra co-curric.

4. I'm not saying emphasise co-currics over actual academic ability.  As I said, it should act as a supplement to give all-round kids a slight advantage over the ones who do absolutely nothing; it's like in America, where you need to have a SAT score of about 2300 before your co-currics actually matter to Harvard.

[minilunchbox]

I really like the ENTER even though I freak out before exams, but I can't think of a preferred system. I guess extra-curriculars should be taken into account for the people who do have a ridiculous amount of them so they can benefit from it, but they shouldn't be completely necessary. That's only because I personally fail when it comes to extra-curriculars because of the cost. I wanted to play certain sports/learn an instrument formally, but my parents would tell me to ~focus on my studies, which is code for 'lol we are broke.'

[appianway]

I've said all along that I think that co-curriculars should be part of the criteria, but that they shouldn't constitute an immense proportion. However, one forseeable problem would be the design of an appropriate criteria and weighting scheme. Would excellence in specific fields be valued above participation in a range of areas? Would the opportunities available to the applicant in comparison to the opportunities seized play any role?

[ninwa]

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.

RE: first point - that could result in dangerously arbitrary standards for what co-curricular activities are "worthy" enough to override that 0.35. A music-strong student may just be lucky enough to get a more music-appreciative judging panel one year, in lieu of a more sports-centric student.

RE: second point - I would really disagree with this point. But the only evidence I have is anecdotal, so I won't bother

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

Yeah but surely they're better than the majority of those who picked up the instrument 2 years ago. I trust the AMEB system enough to mostly produce musicians of a high standard. Otherwise it would be like saying -I know you got 99.95 and I got 60, but that doesn't mean anything you were just lucky *thumbs nose*-


As unfair as the ENTER system is, I honestly cannot think of a better one.

[appianway]

I know that they're better than beginners, but my point was just to say that it's a bit judgemental to base merit on a subjective examination.

[ninwa]

Everything related to the arts is subjective. I still believe the best way to rank students with  music co-curriculars is through results in a nationally-recognised grade progression system which anybody can attempt.

[appianway]

Hmm, it's true that everything related to music's subjective, but I've just found that AMEB grades are often inaccurate and not truly indicative of musicality or technique. It's probably better than any other system around though.

[xXNovaxX]

what do people think of my suggestion I really liked it FAIL

Just to re-iterate it incase people missed it (or thought it was awfully stupid)
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.

Please be nice

[EvangelionZeta]

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.

RE: first point - that could result in dangerously arbitrary standards for what co-curricular activities are "worthy" enough to override that 0.35. A music-strong student may just be lucky enough to get a more music-appreciative judging panel one year, in lieu of a more sports-centric student.

RE: second point - I would really disagree with this point. But the only evidence I have is anecdotal, so I won't bother

Re first point, I'd say it's more about co-curricy students gaining places over students who do nothing; hypothetically speaking, I'd hope they'd try and ensure most co-currics are matched fairly evenly.  Point taken nevertheless, given that humans are prone to...being human.

I won't argue against you disagreeing with the second point because my evidence is anecdotal/theoretical too.  :p

[m@tty]

@xXNovaXx

- Where would the cut off be put in for acceptance for the 'test'? - Universities cannot afford to teach anyone who wants a chance.

-What would happen to the people who get rejected after going through the 'test' period? - How would they make up for the lost time? When they could have been accepted fully into a different course which they could then continue.

[xXNovaxX]

@xXNovaXx

- Where would the cut off be put in for acceptance for the 'test'? - Universities cannot afford to teach anyone who wants a chance.

-What would happen to the people who get rejected after going through the 'test' period? - How would they make up for the lost time? When they could have been accepted fully into a different course which they could then continue.

Point 1= To be honest I can't answer the 1st half about where the cut off would be, well I guess 5% below ENTER? Something small, yet open like that. Also it should depend on how well you write a letter or something just to help divide those who really want to do it, and those who are meh.

But to the second point of your first point, this may sound stupid. But if a few years ago University education was completely free (I think?) I am sure Universities can afford SOME extra students (remember, I didn't say EVERYONE should be given a test thing). Also, they should be able to charge some amount of money, to help lower costs.

Second point to your questions. I agree with you, they can do another course or TAFE or whatever. But SOME people might like to give it a go and hope for the best, because many are perfectly capable to get through it, and you would know if you are up to it.

I know they are not perfect answers, but it was just a thought I had, I guess i am too idealistic.

[m@tty]

In an ideal world there would be enough places for whoever desired to participate.
The dilemma is in where to draw the line and say yes and accept one person but then to the next in line say no. To the rejected person that got so close they will always see the system as unfair - in university entrance (Victoria at least) some of this 'unfairness' is reduced through middle banding - if you are going to start producing second chances for some, the same feel of 'unfairness' will arise from those who are not being offered this opportunity.

Regarding previous 'free' university from what I've heard, which is not very much, these free places were funded by the government and were quite hard to get into. The government still provides significant funding (compare a CSP place fees to an international students fees). But I think that our fees are only replacing some of the governments funding and the universities don't receive extra money.

I was referring to the people who do get rejected after going through the trial period, what options would they have after this? Would they not be better off showing their enthusiasm through results in another course and then applying for transfer?

[periwinkle]

 Piece about sample Oxford Uni interview qs including:
 "Why might it be useful for an English student to read the Twilight series?"

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2009/091009.html