The ATAR requirements for any really worthwhile university subject should be set at a level that ensures the applicants have the at least the ability to complete a full and demanding curriculum covering the necessary understanding of the specific subject.

I have a mental ranking for engineering subjects with electrical and electronics at or near the top followed by mechanical. I do not value the less intellectually demanding applied engineering type courses nearly as highly. Yet in one University in NSW the ATAR for electrical engineering is about 10 marks lower than it is for civil.

Why? Probably because the electrical engineering course is so difficult that not enough applicants want to make the effort; there are too many much easier courses available all of which are much less valuable to the society which funds the bulk of university costs.

It may be difficult to find someone adequate to fill a position. Heard the circus man who was shot from a cannon retired. The position was left vacant because they could find no one of his calibre.

Dear Houellebecq,

Let's break this down.

When I last looked at this topic the local elite private school near us managed to get 1/3 of its students achieving an ATAR of 90 and above. Many of its students are drawn from the Western Districts. In our closest sizable Western District town the public school did not have a single student getting 90 and above.

This means that a huge proportion of publicly subsidised, high end, degree places are taken up by private school children.

The public school my kids went to is deemed a lower/socio economic campus with a disproportionate number of students not moving on to university. As a result some universities give a certain number of students from these schools a boost by adding between 4 to 10 marks to their ATAR scores. There is also a loading for kids from rural areas.

These are some of the inequities Gillard's Gonski reforms were designed to address.

By making a blanket entry mark pathways for disadvantaged students (read many public school students) at UNSW will be reduced. It is elitist.

My child has the university place she wanted because of the reforms already put in place by the then Gillard government. She is thankfully doing well but many of those students she started with have left. The attrition seems to be highest among her private school compatriots.

It would be marvellous to have a system where no schools required an ATAR leg up to have their students enjoying the benefits of an university education. We should support any decent initiatives to achieve this.

'It would be marvellous to have a system where no schools required an ATAR leg up to have their students enjoying the benefits of an university education. We should support any decent initiatives to achieve this.'

About the only sensible thing you've said.

'By making a blanket entry mark pathways for disadvantaged students (read many public school students) at UNSW will be reduced. It is elitist.'

They should be reduced if they have failed to pass the appropriate criteria. So you would rather kid yourself. I see no reason to change the measurements to fit a reality you want. Fix the schools that don't produce students of a decent quality, or run university entrance on IQ and aptitude tests alone.

I find it a ridiculous exercise to attempt to level out ATAR scores, sabotaging your measurement criteria to fit an agenda.

I would much rather spend the resources on children at year 7-12 to make them able to attain the proper measure for university entrance, than to allow them to fail, 'scale' their marks, allow them into university, and waste more resources 'educating' them further.

BTW: Rich private school kids drop out of uni in higher numbers as they really didn't want to be there in the first place, whereas any public school kid that actually makes it has to be pretty intelligent having succeeded with the violent, non-caring apathetic anti-social environment they have navigated.

Rich kids drop out as they have other options. They can join Daddy's company, they can make more money by selling drugs to richer kids and often it's about the age they finally decide to rebel against their pushy but emotionally distant parents, which they can do safely knowing their parents will continue to pick up the tab.

'The public school my kids went to is deemed a lower/socio economic campus with a disproportionate number of students not moving on to university.'

So the children of people from the unfortunate in society with fetal alcohol syndrome are as intelligent, even after more commonly dysfunctional upbringings, than the children of the high achievers?

Without being a snob in any way, it is undeniable that people who have been smart enough, even if corrupt, to make a better living, are more likely with the genetics to be the more intelligent.

Maybe you have a different view of university. I don't think a university degree is needed for a lot of the vocations that seem to require a university degree. I also think there is nothing wrong with not having a university degree and accepting you're just not that smart. A lot of lovely, valuable people in the world are as dumb as dogsh1t, happier than a lot of people with much higher IQs, and with a better quality of life.

Money isn't everything. The big advantage of money seems to be as a vehicle to fence yourself away from some truly damaged individuals in this world.

Whitlam started all this low entry level stuff when he started building socialist universities like Macquarie and Woolongong where anybody could go and the taxpayer pick up the tab.