I am just flabbergasted.

To brand a university as 'elitist' for restricting entry to people who are intelligent!

What's next, branding the Olympics elitist for rejecting men who cant run 100m in under 1 minute?

One can understand the Student Union protecting their customer base, it's purely economic, although from my experience those disposed to joining an organisation don't have such a firm grip on reality, but the Greens must really not even be embarrassed to admit they really think anyone who cant even attain a ATAR of 80 should be at University.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think they should raise it to 90!

I heard on the radio this morning there are some courses where a rank of 50 will do.

If you can only manage an ATAR of 50, you really have no business feeling entitled to the government wasting money attempting to educate you any further. It's simply Preposterous.

Houellebecq please explain the ATAR system.

OI Queensland we have the "OP score". These range from 1 to 25, thus lower than 12 is below average.

Would you believe some courses are going as low as 15 to fill their numbers. The environmental science course often has students from down to 16, for a B.Sc. for gods sake. The math level rarely reaches senior high school.

It is definitely time to cut the university sector by 50%. If they have anyone who could understand the concept, they wouldn't like that I guess.

"What is most important to remember about the ATAR is it is not a measure of intellect or capacity at university, it is simply an entry point and from there students can go on to do very well," said [National Union of Students] president Jade Tyrrell. "We are concerned they're pre-occupied with an elitist attitude, and we're also worried about budget lines taking priority over student equity and access."

It would seem with reasoning such as that, the UNSW is not alone in being pre-occupied with an elitist attitude...

So too apparently is the National Union of Students. Otherwise they wouldn't need a 'president' would they Jade Tyrrell?

Universities today have become big business - and major
changes in universities will continue.
Who knows what the future will entail. Many traditional
fields of study are bypassed others are falling into
disarray. ATAR cut offs were previously determined by
demand for a course and the number of places available.
High entrance scores does not always mean success at university.
Many students who did well at high school where they were
often spoon-fed to get the required results did not do
well at university where they were left to fend for
themselves.

It is the same mentality that seeks to defend teachers when anyone suggests teachers should be of high calibre and require a higher ATAR for entry into a Teaching Degree. As though the suggestion is somehow attacking the profession. One would think that arguing for a higher calibre of teaching, a higher ATAR and (ideally) higher salary would indeed be a confirmation of the importance of teachers.

In an aspirational society a university degree is now considered a necessary accessory. The dumbing down of universities and its consequences do not seem to make a mark on the inevitable outrage register.

There is an odd paradigm emerging. While on one hand there is much said about the value of an educated society, the one-size-fits-all approach is doing more to devalue education.

Access to tertiary education should not be elitist and those who reach the necessary standards should be afforded every opportunity to attend. However, making the entry levels so low makes a mockery of the educated society and devalues the role of other institutions like TAFE and the old Advanced College system which all had a place in providing a variety of options for a variety of aptitudes and skills.

People are not all the same and thus neither should be the educational institutions.

PS: I can't imagine you being 'flabergasted' Houlley. :)