shattered!! missed out by that much...

[Stroodle]

Ha, yeah. I think mine's at 9am. I'm probably better off pulling an all nighter than getting up for it..


Also, you know that something's wrong with the system when a uni app is synonymous with a seas app.

[Kennybhoy]

98.45 for any uni course is straight up ridiculous.

I think SEAS can often be TOO nice... Some people I know who get SEAS/Equity Scholarships are considerably more well off than the majority of the cohort.

A friend of mine was inelligible for SEAS. She had depression and attempted suicide a week before the English exam. Apparently since it was a long-term thing, she couldn't get SEAS.

Yet the bloke who stole your 99.95 girlfriend and went to a private school for 9 years got SEAS for being poor

Hey man...

No actually I don't have a reply to that .

[Eriny]

I know that the SEAS system isn't perfect, but those who think it's unnecessary or too over the top clearly don't understand what it's like to be in a situation where nobody around you thinks they will do very well. It's sad to have missed out by so little, but anger at people who gotten in through SEAS is completely misdirected. UoM has one of the most equitable university admissions requirements in the country because it allows people who come from low socio-economic backgrounds, people who didn't go to the top private schools, people without money for tutors or anything like that, people from isolated areas in the country, etc. to go to the most prestigious university in Victoria. I don't think you understand how much of a difference that makes to people who otherwise never could have dreamed of going to Melbourne or who realised that if they went they would be the only one or two from their school, for any course, not just biomed.

Yes, I agree that there are some instances where people should have gotten SEAS and didn't. That just means that SEAS should be more inclusive (for instance, for people with depression), not less.

And even if it is unfair (And it isn't), it's Melbourne Uni's prerogative to accept whomever they want into their courses. If you don't like it, start your own uni and accept only private school kids. And hey, then you can preserve the friendship groups of those people who went to the same private school for 13 years into university and they don't have to bother with meeting anyone new, just like UWA.

[werdna]

I know that the SEAS system isn't perfect, but those who think it's unnecessary or too over the top clearly don't understand what it's like to be in a situation where nobody around you thinks they will do very well.

This is exactly the vibe around my school. Literally every student believes that they can't do well because of the locality of the school, but in natural fact, anyone can dream big and succeed.

[Russ]

Anyone can dream big but only some people will succeed in those dreams.

I think that UoM has a very good selection policy with respect to disadvantaged students, but I just wish they'd cap it. 50% of the biomedicine entrants were under the clearly in and thus recipients of the SEAS guarantee. That's too much. Graduate access Melbourne guarantees 20% of CSP places for disadvantaged applicants - far more realistic. Yes, it's important to give opportunities to those who didn't have an equitable education but you can't go too far and make a broad guarantee with no provisions on it

[Eriny]

So, Russ, do you think that UoM weren't expecting that so many people would fill the requirements of the SEAS guarantee?

[gamblor0]

If one of the 18 pull out, my bet is that you will get it

so is the only way round 2 offers come about because people already in the course reject the offer?

[Russ]

So, Russ, do you think that UoM weren't expecting that so many people would fill the requirements of the SEAS guarantee?

If I had to guess, I'd think that they checked their application data for 2010 to see how many applicants with SEAS didn't make the cutoff and decided that taking that many students at the expense of students over the cutoff was acceptable to fulfill their social equity goal. Then, when they published the guarantee, they attracted a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise have bothered to get SEAS/known about it/apply for the course.

I definitely don't think that they were planning on 50% of their places being given to SEAS applicants. I might ask tomorrow if I see anyone who can answer it

[Stroodle]

If one of the 18 pull out, my bet is that you will get it

so is the only way round 2 offers come about because people already in the course reject the offer?

Yeah, second round offers are available when people decline or defer. Also some interstate/international students receive their results too late for first round, so they are sometimes offered second round (this can actually sometimes make the second round cutoff higher).

[Eriny]

^ No, they don't have that responsibility, but they certainly reserve that choice. Further, I'm not in any position to say whether or not a person who got a 90.5 from an underrepresented school deserves it more than the person who got a 98.4 and nor are you. However, I do think you need to question the notion of 'deserving' (how is it that anyone is or isn't entitled to a university course?) and you definitely need to question the notion that a higher ENTER score is indicative of capability.

Additionally, of course you wouldn't think that going to an underrepresented school isn't THAT big a deal because you've been socially conditioned to think that anyone can get what they want just by working very hard. I hate to break it to you, but that's not the case. There are exceptions, of course, but generally schools are called 'underrepresented' for a reason. While I think that an academically gifted kid can excel at any school, the vast vast majority of university applicants are not gifted, though the ones who went to those big private schools got a leg up which advantaged them over their public school counterparts. It had little to do with hard work, I'm afraid.

[simpak]

"For the past 30 years, Harvard College has received each year applications for admission that greatly exceed the number of places in the freshman class. The number of applicants who are deemed to be not "qualified" is comparatively small. The vast majority of applicants demonstrate through test scores, high school records and teachers' recommendations that they have the academic ability to do adequate work at Harvard, and perhaps to do it with distinction. Faced with the dilemma of choosing among a large number of "qualified" candidates, the Committee on Admissions could use the single criterion of scholarly excellence and attempt to determine who among the candidates were likely to perform best academically. But for the past 30 years, the Committee on Admissions has never adopted this approach. The belief has been that, if scholarly excellence were the sole or even predominant criterion, Harvard College would lose a great deal of its vitality and intellectual excellence, and that the quality of the educational [p322] experience offered to all students would suffer. Final Report of W. J. Bender, Chairman of the Admission and Scholarship Committee and Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid, pp. 20 et seq. (Cambridge, 1960). Consequently, after selecting those students whose intellectual potential will seem extraordinary to the faculty -- perhaps 150 or so out of an entering class of over 1,100 -- the Committee seeks --

variety in making its choices. This has seemed important . . . in part because it adds a critical ingredient to the effectiveness of the educational experience [in Harvard College]. . . . The effectiveness of our students' educational experience has seemed to the Committee to be affected as importantly by a wide variety of interests, talents, backgrounds and career goals as it is by a fine faculty and our libraries, laboratories and housing arrangements.

Dean of Admissions Fred L. Glimp, Final Report to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 65 Official Register of Harvard University No. 25, 93, 10105 (1968) (emphasis supplied).

The belief that diversity adds an essential ingredient to the educational process has long been a tenet of Harvard College admissions. Fifteen or twenty years ago, however, diversity meant students from California, New York, and Massachusetts; city dwellers and farm boys; violinists, painters and football players; biologists, historians and classicists; potential stockbrokers, academics and politicians. The result was that very few ethnic or racial minorities attended Harvard College. In recent years, Harvard College has expanded the concept of diversity to include students from disadvantaged economic, racial and ethnic groups. Harvard College now recruits not only Californians or Louisianans, but also blacks and Chicanos and other minority students. Contemporary conditions in the United States mean that, if Harvard College is to continue to offer a first-rate education to its students, [p323] minority representation in the undergraduate body cannot be ignored by the Committee on Admissions."

--  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0438_0265_ZO.html

[taiga]

Entry to these particular courses is purely by ENTER score. So, yes, I would say that a higher ENTER score is indicative of a higher capability for the course. If you don't use that as criteria, then what do you use? That's the only data uni's have.

Good man, took the words out of my mouth

[Russ]

Universities don't have a responsibility to admit people from low socio-economic backgrounds; they have a responsibility to admit the best candidates. Sure, use Access Melbourne to compensate for poor schools, or students from very difficult circumstances; but not at the detriment of more capable candidates.

These two statements are mutually exclusive.

Anyway, the university has no obligation to admit the best candidates as measured by ATAR. The admit the candidates they think are the best, based on their own evaluation - they do have a quota to fill in order to achieve their social equity and justice commitments.

[simpak]

Quotas are bad because they encourage reverse discrimination but diversity minus quotas is a good thing.

[Eriny]

Entry to these particular courses is purely by ENTER score. So, yes, I would say that a higher ENTER score is indicative of a higher capability for the course. If you don't use that as criteria, then what do you use? That's the only data uni's have.

Good man, took the words out of my mouth

That's clearly not the case because clearly Melbourne is using criteria other than the ENTER score. Additionally, having a good ENTER score doesn't mean that you'll be top of your course or top of your profession, Melbourne is aware of this.

And actually, I know all about under-represented schools. I went to one, and I even used access melbourne to get an offer from melbourne (although my score was only just under the cut-off anyway, so I would've gotten in regardless). I know that there's an advantage from going to a better school, but it's not as big as Melb uni seem to think it is.

It's the same deal with economically-disadvantaged students. There are plenty that actually deserve this, but it goes too far once again. I know quite a few people who waltzed into Melbourne on this point, even though they live extremely comfortably.

I'm not going to say that everyone at Melbourne 'deserves' to be at Melbourne by any criteria other than they were admitted into Melbourne. However, the claim that it 'goes too far' is substantiated only by anecdotal evidence that it might be. I'd certainly agree with you that there are people who qualify for SEAS who shouldn't qualify for SEAS just as there are people who qualify for welfare or Youth Allowance who also probably shouldn't. I wouldn't necessarily say that this is the case for a large amount of cases, because I don't know. And I certainly wouldn't say that the overall effect is detrimental to equity - for each single person who doesn't 'deserve' it, there are enough people who actually really need and benefit from the policy to justify the policy. Similarly, I think that there are enough people who really need welfare who mitigate the existence of 'dole bludgers'. It's not ideal though, of course.

I also went to an underrepresented school and I was offered an Access Melbourne scholarship because of that fact (it's the only SEAS category I qualify for). At the time, I may have agreed with you because I figured that I had very good teachers and that I wasn't in an area rife with gang violence and such. However, it is odd that pretty much all of the people I knew who went to a private school ended up going to Melbourne uni, along with all their friends. Upon graduation, I was the only person given an option to Melbourne Uni and only one of two who would have had scores high enough to qualify. Why is this?

The reasons why going to an underrepresented school disadvantages you are multiplicitous and I'm not going to write an extended list why right here. But, these schools tend to be under resourced and where there are good resources, they tend to get damaged or go missing. There is less peer pressure to perform well. There are a few good performers who are outliers but at the same time, you don't benefit from having a peer group which challenges you to do well or assists you in trying to do well. On top of that, there are going to be a high number of students who aren't kicked out of an underrepresented school (because it's not policy to kick people out) who constantly distract the class, who really do detract from the learning process and waste a lot of class time. There is also less pressure from parents. If they didn't worry too much about getting you into a 'good' school, chances are you aren't going to internalise the idea that education is very important, at least not from them. Additionally, underrepresented schools tend to be in the lower socio-economic area, so even if your parents earn too much for you to qualify for youth allowance, chances are your area will be under resourced as well, and there will be more peer pressure in regards to drugs and alcohol. Even if you don't indulge in those things, the pressure to do so will distract you from study (I'm not saying that non-underrepresented school students don't face distraction, but I believe it is a different order of distraction). Teachers at underrepresented schools are also less likely to be assessors and therefore aren't able to give insight into exactly what examiners are looking for to the same degree as an assessor is. Etc.

It is quite a sobering fact that, in Australia, the primary indicator of your success in high school is your post code.

While I don't really think that you, or I for that matter, have 'overcame to odds' to do well, we are exceptions to the general rule and I don't think it does us or anyone else justice to disparage others for not being exceptions. (Here, I don't mean 'exception' to necessarily denote super smart or anything like that, just that it's simply not the norm and it's not what most people would predict from the data).

Quotas are bad because they encourage reverse discrimination but diversity minus quotas is a good thing.

I think quotas or some thing similar to quotas might be necessary, but they shouldn't be forever. It's just that when certain people have been systematically oppressed or discriminated against or disadvantaged for a very long time, I think you need a policy that systematically makes up for that. Quotas aren't necessarily the best way to do that though (e.g. just letting someone in because it helps achieve the quota if they don't actually want to do the course).