review of bachelor of philosophy (honours) selection processes · data sources (atar, quantitative...

Review of Bachelor of Philosophy (Honours) selection processes TRIM FILE REFERENCE: F37849 FILE PATH ON SERVER: 201207 - Review of selection for the BPhil (Hons), following Admissions v2.0.docx DOCUMENT STATUS

Draft Ready for Review x Final

DOCUMENT MODIFICATION HISTORY

Version Number

Primary Author(s) Description of Version

Date Completed

Provided To

0.1 Wayne Betts Initial draft 08/0612 Ian McArthur, Jenna Mead

0.2 Wayne Betts Modifications following feedback 10/06/12 Ian McArthur, Jenna Mead

0.3 Wayne Betts Circulated to BPhil admissions sub-committee members

13/06/12 Sub-committee

1.0 Wayne Betts Version for Admissions Committee 14/06/12 Executive Officer, Admissions Committee

1.1 Wayne Betts Amended version following Admissions Committee discussion

05/07/12 PVC (E), Admissions Committee, BPhil (Hons) sub-committee

2.0 Wayne Betts Version 2 sent to BPhil (Hons) BOS 16/07/12 EO, BPhil (Hons) BOS

DOCUMENT APPROVAL

Approved By Signature Date

E1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of recommendations.................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction and Context ......................................................................................... 4

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 4 1.2 BPhil selection policy development ...................................................................... 4 1.3 Admissions sub-committee/selection panel .......................................................... 5 1.4 The 2012 Admissions Exercise ............................................................................ 5 1.5 The Review process ............................................................................................ 5

2. Review findings and recommendations ...................................................................... 5 2.1 Preliminary comments ......................................................................................... 5 2.2 Issues relating to international students ............................................................... 6 2.3 Issues relating to domestic students .................................................................... 8

Appendix 1: BPhil (Hons) Ranking sheet – domestic undergraduate admissions 2012 ... 19 Appendix 2: Average mark in first year at UWA v ATAR, 2009 + 2010 ............................ 23

E2

List of recommendations Recommendation 1: Results from the International Student Admissions Test (ISAT) should be used to rank international student applicants whose academic results meet the BPhil (Hons) academic threshold (equivalent to ATAR of at least 98.00), effective for 2014 admissions. Recommendation 2: If quota considerations demand differentiation between domestic applicants with the same ATAR at the margin of selection, the selection committee should take into consideration applicants’ Tertiary Entrance Aggregates (or notional equivalents where applicable). (Effective for 2013 admissions exercise onwards.) Recommendation 3: Where a domestic applicant presents with a non-WACE secondary school qualification for which an equivalent ATAR is assigned, a notional TEA value will also be assigned for BPhil (Hons) ranking purposes. This value will be the lowest TEA in the range represented by the applicant’s ATAR. Recommendation 4: The number of additional equity places offered for the BPhil (Hons) in 2013 should be increased to seven. Notionally, there should be three places set aside for indigenous students, two places for students from regional and remote areas and two places for low SES students, with any unfilled places in any sub-quota reallocated at the discretion of the Selection Committee. Recommendation 5: The eligibility criterion for consideration within the regional and sub-quota should be completion of Year 12 at a secondary school situated in an area classified as regional (Levels M3 to M6) or remote (Levels M7, M8) under the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA). Recommendation 6: Applicants within the regional and remote sub-quota should be ranked on a notional ATAR, adjusted according to the geographical isolation of the applicant’s school (using existing UWay methodology). Recommendation 7: Entry to the BPhil (Hons) should be limited to Group 1 (school-leaving) applicants and UWA students who have completed 48 credit points. Recommendation 8: Apart from where indicated above, ranking for entry to the BPhil (Hons) for Group 1 (school-leaving) applicants should continue to be based only on Year 12 academic results (ATAR/TEA or equivalent). Recommendation 9: A decision on whether or not to explore the introduction of supplementary entry criteria and processes for the BPhil (Hons) should be delayed until Semester One, 2013, so that evidence from both the 2012 and 2013 intakes can be taken into account.

E3

1. Introduction and Context

1.1 Introduction This document has been prepared at the request of the Chair of the Bachelor of Philosophy (Honours) Board of Studies, to record the discussion and recommendations of the BPhil (Hons) Admissions Sub-committee, following the admission of the first intake to the BPhil (Hons) in Semester One, 2012. After some background information, summarising the range of selection issues discussed by the University community between 2009 and 2012, the paper presents the sub-committee’s recommendations on issues that arose during the 2012 admissions exercise.

1.2 BPhil selection policy development Much of the detail of BPhil (Hons) admissions policy had its genesis in the BPhil (Hons) Interim Board of Studies, with subsequent consideration and discussion by the Admissions Committee, Board of Coursework Studies and Academic Council. The following chronology outlines the development of the policy to the end of 2011. IBoS meeting Selection issue discussed December 2009 • Opinion that TER (subsequently ATAR) should not be used as the

only basis of entry. • Selection processes to be reviewed after two intakes. • Cohort of approximately 30 students for first two years of program. • The BPhil (Hons) cohort should consist of ‘diverse and

academically outstanding students.’ • Mention of a ‘diversity profile’ encompassing gender, indigenous

status, type of school attended and rural isolation. January 2010 • Concern that high TER may be the result of extensive coaching at

secondary school level. • Suggestion of use of a ‘reflective statement’ in selection. • Three places to be reserved for indigenous students.

June 2010 • Research from Planning Services suggests that an ATAR of 98 or equivalent would not generally have adverse impacts on the University’s aims of increasing equity and diversity opportunities.

• Sub-quota of up to six additional places to be set aside for indigenous, low SES and rural students.

• Suggestion of using a structured interview process rather than a reflective statement.

• Expert working party formed to advise on the nature of a proposed interview process, its assessment mechanism and other related issues for admission to the BPhil (Hons) course.

• Establishment of a selection panel approved. • Separate sub-quota for international students approved.

October 2010 • Notion of flexibility in relation to minimum ATAR for students in equity places endorsed.

• ATAR identified as key selection criterion, but ranking by ATAR alone might not be a sufficient criterion to select the best students suitable for the course.

• Report received from working party, recommending use of multiple data sources (ATAR, quantitative measure [Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices] and qualitative measure [Achievement Profile]) together with suggested means of selecting students using these sources.

April 2011 • Following consideration of working party report by Admissions Committee, agreement that selection for 2012 intake to be by ATAR alone, pending further investigation of supplementary selection tools.

E4

May 2011 • Definition of low SES to be consistent with that used by Broadway and Fairway and request for IRU to examine academic achievement and demographic characteristics of past cohorts of equity students admitted to UWA.

September 2011 • Terms of reference, membership and procedures for Admissions sub-committee established.

1.3 Admissions sub-committee/selection panel The following people were members of the Admissions sub-committee for the 2012 admissions exercise: • Winthrop Professor Ian MacArthur, Head, School of Physics (Chair) • Professor Trish Todd, UWA Business School • Mr Wayne Betts, Associate Director, Student Services (Admissions) • Associate Professor Jenna Mead, BPhil (Hons) Coordinator • Assistant Professor Jeromy Harvey, School of Indigenous Studies • Dr Judy Skene, Associate Director, Student Services (Student Support) • Mr Garry Hendy, Associate Director, International Admissions, International Centre/Ms

Fiona Birt, Manager, International Postgraduate Students, International Centre • Ms Barbara Levit, Executive Officer, Admissions Committee (Executive Officer)

1.4 The 2012 Admissions Exercise Two sub-committee meetings were held during the course of the Admissions Exercise, to decide on the offers to be made in Main Round and Second Round. Over the course of the exercise, a number of issues were identified as requiring attention for subsequent offer rounds. These were confirmed with committee members in meetings and by circulation.

1.5 The Review process The issues identified by the committee were included in a report on admission to the BPhil presented to the BPhil (Hons) Board of Studies at its March meeting. At the meeting, the committee was asked to continue work on the issues raised, to develop firm recommendations for consideration. The BOS also raised some questions and issues for the sub-committee’s consideration. A further meeting of the admissions sub-committee was convened in April to review the issues in more detail and to develop recommendations for modified policy and procedures where appropriate. At the meeting, consideration was also given to the challenges of ranking Group 2 (non-ATAR) applicants for admission to the BPhil (Hons) and an additional recommendation on this issue was drafted. The Chair of the BPhil (Hons) Board of Studies requested that the minutes from the review meeting be redrafted into a more extensive review report for consideration by the Admissions Committee, the BPhil (Hons) BOS, the Board of Coursework Studies and Academic Council as necessary. This document is the result.

2. Review findings and recommendations

2.1 Preliminary comments An ATAR of 98.00 was recommended early in considerations about BPhil (Hons) admissions as an appropriate academic threshold to determine applicants’ eligibility for the course. For ranking purposes, a minimum ATAR of 98.00 provides 40 potential points of discrimination. As it turned out, due to the high level of demand in the 2012 admissions exercise, selection decisions were being made at much higher ATAR levels – 99.85 in Main Round, 99.65 in Second Round for the standard quota – utilising three discrimination points in Main Round and seven in Second Round. A number of the recommendations which follow are made as a result of the selection panel’s concern at the difficulties of maintaining an equitable selection process at such a high level of academic achievement.

E5

2.2 Issues relating to international students

2.2.1 Closing date for international applications This issue was raised by staff of the International Centre. Given the level of demand for the BPhil now evident amongst international students, administrative arrangements need to be tightened to ensure that a finalised pool of applicants is available at the time of selection. For 2012 admissions, seven applications were received for the four places. A number of these applications were submitted after the initial offers for international students had been decided. To minimise the potential for highly-competitive applicants to emerge after the four international places have been allocated, a closing date earlier than standard dates for international students needs to be implemented. A similar approach is already in place for international applications for Assured Entry Pathway places in Medicine and Dentistry (closing date: 30 June). The early Medicine and Dentistry closing date takes into account the longer lead-in required for conducting interviews. The BPhil selection process does not require as early a closing date, but an appropriate date would enable the selection panel to consider the overall pool of international students, before confirming successful offers. The BPhil Selection Committee agreed that, effective for 2013 admissions, the closing date for applications from international students for the Bachelor of Philosophy (Honours) should be set at 31st October (2012), with late applications being accepted at the discretion of the International Centre. As this was considered an administrative decision rather than one of admissions policy, it does not form one of the formal recommendations from the review.

2.2.2 Discriminating between high-achieving international students International students present with a variety of secondary qualifications. In the 2012 application cohort, the following qualifications were presented:

• WA Certificate of Education (3) • Ontario Year 12 • New South Wales HSC • International Baccalaureate • Canning College Foundation Program

The University makes use of a series of conversion tables that are used to translate results from a variety of international secondary qualifications into notional selection ranks (ATAR) for the purposes of selection. The challenge for the BPhil selection sub-committee is that, based on academic performance alone, it is difficult, if not impossible in some circumstances, to separate applicants who achieve the maximum score possible in their respective qualifications.

Table 1: Notional ATAR conversions for common international qualifications

For most courses, all students with exceptional secondary results would be readily admitted, and in the few courses with tighter quotas (Medicine, Dentistry Assured Entry Pathways), additional selection criteria and processes (such as aptitude tests and interviews) allow further differentiation between students with high levels of academic achievement.

Qualification Maximum score Notional ATAR International Baccalaureate 45 99.95 South African National Senior Certificate 7.0 99.95 GCE A-levels 20+ 99.90 Canadian Matriculation 98 99.00 All India Senior Certificate 20 99.00 Swedish Slutbetyg 20 99.00 US College Board AP Subjects 16 99.00

E6

Another factor is that, unlike the ATAR, which has been developed to provide comparability of student performance throughout Australia, other qualifications may not subject to the same statistical processes. As a result, we are not comparing ‘like with like’. This raises issues of fairness and transparency when making selection decisions at the extreme upper end of achievement scales. In considering this issue, the panel felt that the selection process for international students would be strengthened by the use of an additional common test. The International Student Admissions Test (ISAT)1, already used for selection of international students for admission to Medicine/Dentistry courses, was suggested as a potential selection tool in this context. The inclusion of a structured interview for international students was also discussed but members agreed that interview as part of the selection process was not appropriate at this time. However, interview as a selection tool may be worthy of future consideration. The Committee felt that the experiences of the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences in selecting and ranking high achieving applicants would be useful in informing future BPhil selection and admission exercises and felt it may be worthwhile to meet with FMDHS representatives to discuss their experiences. Members agreed that the attractiveness of ISAT was strengthened by its ready availability, both in terms of testing sessions throughout the year and in multiple locations world-wide. It is familiar to UWA’s principal overseas representatives and in this respect it is a well-trodden path for prospective students and UWA’s international agents. A number of prospective international BPhil (Hons) applicants would, in all likelihood, be taking the test anyway, as part of their application for an Assured Entry Pathway place for Medicine or Dentistry. In discussing this matter, the panel was aware of the sensitivities involved in recommending the application of an additional selection criterion for international students and not for domestic students, given that the University has maintained the application of common entry standards for all applicants, regardless of their backgrounds. Some thought was given to applying a similar test for domestic applicants as well, but it was felt that this was an unnecessary imposition, when the ATAR/TEA (see below) provided an adequate means of ranking already. It is important to point out that the panel is not suggesting any variation to the minimum academic requirement for entry to the BPhil (Hons) for either domestic or international students. The use of ISAT is a means of ensuring equitable ranking of international applicants. The need to consider the introduction of an additional test is unavoidable because of the challenges faced in assessing international applications from such a wide variety of jurisdictions. The panel felt that: • a precedent in varying admissions processes for domestic and international students

had been set with the use of ISAT (instead of UMAT) for international applicants to Medicine and Dentistry AEPs;

• the ISAT was readily available throughout the world; • a number of potential BPhil international student applicants would already be sitting the

test; • the cost of the test2 would be more acceptable to international prospective BPhil

applicants in the context of expenses incurred as preparation for their overseas study experience.

1 ISAT is a 3 hour computer-based multiple choice test designed to assess a candidate's intellectual skills and abilities that are the foundation of academic success. Designed by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), the test is available worldwide, Further information on ISAT is available at: http://isat.acer.edu.au. 2 US$300 outside Australia; AUD$250 within Australia.

E7

The panel considered how ISAT scores could be used to rank international BPhil (Hons) applicants. Three possibilities were canvassed: • Use ISAT test scores [alone], to rank and differentiate applicants whose academic

results, from diverse secondary institutions, reach the minimum academic threshold for the BPhil (Hons). Academic performance would be used to establish eligibility, but final ranking would be determined by ISAT scores. It was felt that, given the uncertainty in comparing disparate academic qualifications at the level of differentiation required, using academic results to determine basic eligibility was preferable to using them for final selection. It was pointed out, however, that such an approach could result in a student with academic results at the threshold of acceptability, but with superior ISAT scores, being admitted over another student with stronger academic results.

• Use ISAT test scores as a ‘tie-breaker’ between applicants with comparable academic

performance. In this approach, the test scores would only come into play where two applicants with ‘equal’ academic performance (as assessed by current conversion tables) were competing for one remaining place. While this approach has the attraction of weighting selection in favour of academic performance, it does mean applicants would be asked to sit a test which would only be used occasionally in actual selection decisions. The Committee felt such an imposition was not equitable; if the test was to be used, it should be used for all applicants.

• Use ISAT scores as well as academic performance to produce a ranked list. The

Committee noted that FMDHS combined results from ISAT, interview and academic performance in its selection process for Medicine and Dentistry Assured Entry Pathways, by using standardised scores (z scores). However, reservations were expressed regarding the appropriateness of using standardised scores for a pool of, possibly, only a handful of applicants, with a variety of qualifications. This proposal still faces the initial concerns about comparing results from differing jurisdictions at the level of precision demanded of the process.

After considering the strengths and weaknesses of the three approaches, the BPhil Selection Committee arrived at the following recommendation: Recommendation 1: Results from the International Student Admissions Test (ISAT) should be used to rank international student applicants whose academic results meet the BPhil (Hons) academic threshold (equivalent to ATAR of at least 98.00), effective for 2014 admissions. This recommendation was endorsed by the Admissions Committee at its June 2012 meeting.

2.3 Issues relating to domestic students

2.3.1 Differentiating between students with the same ATAR Use of ATAR alone for ranking of students was potentially a problem if it was not possible to take all of the students with a given ATAR into the course. The 2012 selection process was fortuitous, as the offering threshold for the Main Round quota fell at a clean break between an ATAR of 99.85 and 99.80 (See Appendix 1). In the Second Round, the panel was faced with a decision to over-offer, as a result of there being multiple applicants on the next available ATAR selection point. The panel felt that, unless a fall-back position was explored, selection based on ATAR only, with no further differentiation, may present difficulties in the future, possibly resulting in significant over-enrolment in the BPhil. To address this challenge, the possibility of using both the ATAR and the TEA3 (Tertiary Entrance Aggregate) for ranking applicants for admission to the BPhil was suggested. This would help to differentiate students with the same ATAR as, particularly at the top end of the

3 The Tertiary Entrance Aggregate is a number out of 400; the sum of an applicant’s best four scaled scores.

E8

TEA/ATAR distribution, a single ATAR covers a range of TEAs. The following table shows the TEA range represented by the relevant ATAR in 2011, and the number of BPhil applicants on the final ranked list, sharing that ATAR. ATAR TEA range BPhil applicants 99.95 385.0 – 400.0 14 99.90 377.6 – 384.9 23 99.85 372.7 – 377.5 9 99.80 369.9 – 372.6 10 99.75 367.5 – 369.8 5 99.70 364.3 – 367.4 18 99.65 360.6 – 364.2 19 99.60 358.0 – 360.5 9

Table 2: 2011 ATAR/TEA values and number of BPhil (Hons) applicants

Not all applicants with an ATAR have a corresponding TEA underlying it. Interstate applicants and applicants presenting with non-WACE school-leaving qualifications (eg: International Baccalaureate, GCE A-levels) are assigned a notional ATAR, rather than having one calculated from a TEA. To compensate for this, the committee proposed that applicants with non-WACE school-leaving qualifications be assigned a notional TEA for ranking purposes. Where an ATAR value covers a range of possible TEAs, the notional TEA assigned will be the lowest TEA value corresponding to a given ATAR. To illustrate, in the table above, an interstate applicant with an ATAR of 99.65 would be assigned the notional TEA value of 360.6 for BPhil ranking purposes. Recommendation 2: If quota considerations demand differentiation between domestic applicants with the same ATAR at the margin of selection, the selection committee should take into consideration applicants’ Tertiary Entrance Aggregates (or notional equivalents where applicable). (Effective for 2013 admissions exercise onwards.) Recommendation 3: Where a domestic applicant presents with a non-WACE qualification for which an equivalent ATAR is assigned, a notional TEA value will also be assigned for BPhil (Hons) ranking purposes, corresponding to the lowest TEA represented by the applicant’s ATAR.

At first glance, the recommendations in this section may seem to contradict those of the previous section on selecting international students, where the use of an additional test is recommended as the way to differentiate between applicants. The obvious question that arises is why the committee has chosen not to apply a notional TEA-based approach with international students. Fewer international students for the BPhil present with WACE results and so the majority of the applicant pool would need to be assigned notional ATARs. If the approach, above, was followed for international students, international applicants with the same notional ATAR would also be assigned the same notional TEA, thereby merely perpetuating the problem identified in the previous discussion. These recommendations were endorsed by the Admissions Committee at its June 2012 meeting.

2.3.2 Equity quota places – promotion In the 2012 admissions exercise, there were only a small number of applications for the indigenous, low SES and rural quota places. As a response, the committee considered how the University might to do more to publicise the existence of these places.

E9

It was acknowledged that some of the policy and administrative issues surrounding the low-SES and rural equity places were finalised very late in 2011, allowing little time for promotion of the places. Throughout 2012, the Prospective Students Office will be able to more actively promote the existence of the places through contact with students, parents and teachers. With respect to Indigenous students, it was acknowledged that there is a very small number of eligible applicants and that competition from other universities to enrol the same individuals is fierce. Indigenous students tended to go where other family members had gone before, which explains why some eligible students may not have chosen UWA and, at the same time, emphasises the importance and challenge of attracting and enrolling indigenous students into the BPhil. The BPhil Selection Committee encourages the School of Indigenous Studies in its efforts to actively identify and invite top indigenous students in Years 11 and 12 to consider and apply for the Bachelor of Philosophy (Honours). It must be noted, however, that for some students eligible for the equity quota places, the BPhil (Hons) may not be an attractive proposition. The Prospective Students Office and other outreach activities (such as Aspire UWA) face significant challenges in convincing students from some areas to consider UWA as a welcoming, realistic destination for them. It is possible that the very characteristics of the BPhil (Hons) we consider appealing and that are attractive to many students may, in fact, be alienating to others. Similarly, the prospect of facing four years of increased pressure due to the BPhil (Hons) performance threshold requirement may be off-putting to some students. Finally, many students – particularly those from under-represented cohorts – may not understand or appreciate the value of a research-focussed degree. A more attractive proposition for them may be clear pathways to recognisable professions such as Law, Medicine, Dentistry or Engineering.

2.3.3 Equity places - quota It was noted that, for 2012, as a result of reallocation of unused places for indigenous students, the number of students admitted under equity provisions split evenly between rural and low SES. However, the Committee felt it would be prudent to revise BPhil (Hons) selection policy to ensure that applicants from rural and low SES backgrounds continued to be represented equally in the BPhil (Hons) cohort. Recommendation 4: The number of additional equity places offered for the BPhil (Hons) in 2013 should be increased to seven. Notionally, there should be three places set aside for indigenous students, two places for regional and remote students and two places for low SES students, with any unfilled places in any sub-quota reallocated at the discretion of the Selection Committee. This recommendation was endorsed by the Admissions Committee at its June 2012 meeting, on the understanding that the terminology and definition of ‘rurality’ would be made consistent with that used for reporting to the commonwealth.

2.3.4 Rural sub-quota definition and ranking methodology The current definition of “rural” was, effectively, “outside Perth” (based on a distance of 75 kms from the City centre). The rural quota is in place partly in recognition that students in some rural high schools are disadvantaged by lack of access to high quality facilities or all WACE subject areas. Some schools in bigger regional centres such as Bunbury and Albany do not fall into this category. There is a danger that such a broad, ‘one-size-fits-all’ definition, with no further intervention, allowed for the rural equity sub-quota to be dominated by high-achieving students from a few regional private schools. The Committee agreed that achievement of a score of 98.00+ by a student in a geographically-isolated school deserved recognition ahead of a similar score achieved by a student in a well-resourced private school in a large regional community.

E10

The question also arose as to whether extra weighting should be applied to students who were both low-SES and rural. The panel agreed that the compensatory score-adjustment mechanisms used in processes such as UWay Alternative Admission Pathway be applied to applicants in the BPhil (Hons) equity sub-quota. In this way, while applicants from schools in Bunbury and Albany would still be eligible for consideration in the quota, their scores would not be adjusted to the extent of those of applicants from remote area schools and/or students who were from low SES backgrounds. This was felt to be the best way of evening up the competitive selection process in this sub-quota, and had the advantage of being based on existing, well-developed policy and practice. During the Admissions Committee consideration of these recommendations, it was suggested that the definition of and terminology used for describing “rurality” should be made more consistent with that used by the University in reporting to the commonwealth. Subsequent discussions with Planning Services and Student Services staff have resulted in the replacement of ‘rural’ with ‘regional and remote’ and a modification of the definition to make use of the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) classifications, which form the basis of reporting these measures to the commonwealth. While there was some concern that classification of this nature would make promotion and explanation of the regional and remote places more complicated, an examination of the classifications of WA postcodes reveals that WA postcodes within the range 6207-6799 qualify as either regional or remote. The main difference between this approach and the original definition is that students from schools in Mandurah will now be eligible for consideration within the sub-quota. However, it is anticipated that the compensation for remoteness, outlined in Recommendation 6, will even up the competition, to minimise the likelihood of this sub-quota being dominated completely by students from relatively well-resourced schools in larger regional areas. It should be noted that there is a difference between the reporting protocols for the commonwealth and this eligibility criterion. Reporting of regional and remote students to the commonwealth is based on students’ permanent home addresses, rather than on school attended. However, if that protocol was adopted for admissions purposes, it is highly likely that the sub-quota would be filled by students from country areas boarding at metropolitan schools. This would be inconsistent with the purpose of the sub-quota: to facilitate the admission of a diverse cohort of students. Recommendation 5: The eligibility criterion for consideration within the regional and sub-quota should be completion of Year 12 at a secondary school situated in an area classified as regional (Levels M3 to M6) or remote (Levels M7, M8) under the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA). Recommendation 6: Applicants within the regional and remote sub-quota should be ranked on a notional ATAR, adjusted according to the geographical isolation of the applicant’s school (using existing UWay methodology).

Both these recommendations were endorsed in principle by the Admissions Committee at its June meeting, subject to modification of the eligibility criterion wording to be consistent with commonwealth reporting terminology. The text of the recommendations now reflects this.

E11

2.3.5 Group 2 (non-Year 12) admission During the committee’s discussions, concerns were raised about the practicalities of including non-UWA Group 2 (non-WACE) applicants in the selection pool for the BPhil (Hons) in 2013, as outlined in the current BPhil policy (Clause 4.1). Members were advised that the ten ‘transfer’ places for current UWA students (BPhil policy clause 4.2) were not at issue, because applicants could be ranked with relative confidence, using the UWA-calculated Weighted Average Mark. However, it was pointed out that, for applicants with results from a range of institutions, it is impossible to rank them against one another with the level of precision required, let alone to rank them in the same applicant pool as ATAR students, where the selection point occurs within the top 0.5% (ie: ATAR of 99.50+). With such a small quota, admitting one student means excluding another. There is simply not enough information to rank non-ATAR applicants with the same confidence asis done with ATAR applicants. In discussing this item, members raised concerns about pathways to the BPhil (Hons) for groups such as mature-aged students. It was noted that the provision of students at UWA to apply for one of the ten transfer places at the end of their first year addresses this concern. It was pointed out that it is theoretically possible for a student with no prior study, admitted under the Mature age Access Program (MAP), to secure a place in the BPhil (Hons) in their second year, if their results in their first year of study are strong enough4. After considering this matter, the committee agreed that including Group 2 applicants in the BPhil (Hons) selection process is fraught with too many difficulties to ensure equitable, transparent and defensible selection decisions. As a result, the Selection Committee makes the following recommendation: Recommendation 7: Entry to the BPhil (Hons) should be limited to Group 1 (school-leaving) applicants and UWA students who have completed 48 credit points. This recommendation was endorsed by the Admissions Committee at its June 2012 meeting.

2.3.6 Use of additional selection criteria and/or tests The purpose of this paper is to address a number of relatively urgent issues relating to the administration of admission to the BPhil. The broader question of whether or not additional selection criteria or tests should be used in the selection of students into the BPhil has not yet been revisited. Should the current selection panel or an alternative expert group be charged with the responsibility of exploring further alternative selection processes for the BPhil, that task would need to be completed during the second half of 2012, with a view to having policy decisions finalised by the end of the year, so that revised information could be included in the 2014 undergraduate prospectus and could inform recruitment efforts throughout 2013. However, before the time and efforts of a number of staff are expended on such a task, the committee believes it is necessary to seek clarification on the fundamental issue of whether or not the introduction of additional selection processes would actually improve the achievement of admitting a ‘diverse and academically outstanding’ cohort of students. From the record of meetings in which such matters have been discussed, it would appear that the need for additional testing has been accepted largely without challenge, with much of the debate being fuelled by four main issues:

4 Advice from the Institutional Research Unit (16 May 2012) indicates that, of 303 first year mature-age students, 18 gained a WAM of 80+.

E12

• the need for finer discrimination than the ATAR can provide; • concern that selection by ATAR alone would not provide a sufficiently diverse cohort; • a perception that high ATARs can be the result of intense coaching at secondary

school level; and • a belief that success in a course such as the BPhil (Hons) demands skills and

qualities not adequately measured by the ATAR. Discrimination As the discussion in sections 2.2.2 and 2.3.1 shows, for domestic students the ATAR and TEA together provide sufficient discrimination for selection purposes; however, for the pragmatic purpose of ranking international students with a more diverse range of qualifications, the use of an additional selection test would provide greater discrimination than is currently possible. Diversity Section 2.3.7, below, addresses the concerns of achieving a ‘diverse and academically outstanding cohort’ and shows that the current BPhil (Hons) intake is about as diverse as possible, given the current academic threshold and the small number of students involved. Specific sub-quotas and modifications to selection practices recommended in this paper ensure that students from diverse backgrounds have places in the BPhil (Hons) intake in similar proportions to those in the overall student population. It is difficult to see how the introduction of another selection test would necessarily improve the diversity profile of the intake to any significant extent, unless the academic threshold is also relaxed; however, as the table in Appendix B shows, relaxation of the threshold may increase the risk of students failing to meet the ongoing performance requirements of the BPhil (Hons). Students coached to achieve high ATARs Students at well-resourced schools have access to support and experiences that should maximise their chances of success in Year 12, compared to students at other schools in regional or remote areas. In support of this, analysis of first-year performance shows that, on average, students from under-represented schools do better at UWA than their ATAR would suggest. This is potentially a very contentious issue. At this stage, the committee has no recommendations, other than to note that the recommendations relating to the rural intake do address this issue. Qualities not measured by the ATAR In previous discussions on additional selection mechanisms to supplement the ATAR, mention has been made of tests such as Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices that measure, amongst other things, abstract reasoning ability. It has been suggested that students with such abilities would be good candidates for research degrees. However, current policies for selecting students to proceed into honours and subsequent research degrees are based on demonstrated academic performance at undergraduate level, not on additional selection tests. Regular analysis of the relationship between secondary school performance and performance in degree studies confirms that the ATAR is the best predictor of success at UWA. The committee is of the opinion that, until such time as it can be demonstrated that:

• selection by ATAR-only is not meeting the objective of admitting a cohort of ‘diverse and academically outstanding’ students; or that

• application of additional selection criteria or tests would noticeably improve the achievement of that objective,

E13

selection for the BPhil (Hons) continue to be based only on Year 12 academic performance, as measured by the ATAR/TEA (or equivalent). Recommendation 8: Apart from where indicated otherwise, ranking for entry to the BPhil (Hons) for Group 1 (school-leaving) applicants should continue to be based only on Year 12 academic results (ATAR/TEA or equivalent). However, the committee suggests that the situation in relation to additional entry criteria be reviewed following the next intake, in Semester One, 2013. This aligns with many of the original admissions-related discussions that recommended a thorough review of selection policy after two admissions exercises. Recommendation 9: A decision on whether or not to explore the introduction of supplementary entry criteria and processes for the BPhil (Hons) should be delayed until Semester One, 2013, so that evidence from both the 2012 and 2013 intakes can be taken into account.

These recommendations were endorsed by the Admissions Committee at its June 2012 meeting.

2.3.7 Diversity of the BPhil cohort With the dual-focussed aim of admitting both a ‘diverse and academically outstanding’ cohort of students, concerns about a potential lack of diversity within the BPhil (Hons) cohort had been expressed throughout the implementation process:

“The question arises as to whether using an ATAR of 98 as the cut-off for the Bachelor of Philosophy (Hons) would systematically lead to Bachelor of Philosophy (Hons) student group that would be substantially different in demographic characteristics from the domestic student intakes into other UWA undergraduate courses? 5”

Initial examination of the mix of students within the 2012 BPhil (Hons) group showed broad comparability to the overall incoming student cohort. It was observed that there was a strong trend towards the Engineering Science major amongst the BPhil (Hons) students. However, as outlined below, subsequent analysis revealed that the Engineering Science major is popular with many students with high ATARs, not just BPhil (Hons) students. Given the significant proportion of BPhil (Hons) students majoring in Engineering Science, some members were concerned that some students may choose to exit the (4year) BPhil (Hons) after 3 years and continue with a professional postgraduate course in Engineering (or Law, Medicine or Dentistry for those with other Assured Entry Pathway places) rather than proceed into the fourth year of the course. Though this is a legitimate concern, and deserves to be monitored closely as the initial cohort moves through the course, members felt the strong group dynamics, sense of belonging and cohesion within the group, evident even at this early stage, may be enough to counteract the temptation to exit at the end of three years. It is reasonable to expect that the BPhil cohort should reflect a mix of students in relation to a number of characteristics6, including: • Gender • Socio economic status

5 Response paper on Admissions, Quota and Resourcing Issues for Bachelor of Philosophy (Hons), BPhil (Hons) IBoS minutes, 21 June 2010. 6 Of the characteristics listed, only the first four are official performance indicators for measuring diversity. School background and intended area of study are included because they have figured prominently in many of the discussions about the desire for a ‘diverse’ BPhil (Hons) cohort. Interestingly, no mention can be found in official records of discussions of a desire for students with disabilities to be adequately represented in the course.

E14

• Cultural background (Indigenous students, students from non-English-speaking backgrounds)

• Students with disabilities • School background (government, catholic, independent) • Intended area of study (sciences, arts, etc) The analysis which follows compares the makeup of the BPhil (Hons) cohort with the characteristics of either the wider commencing student population (using data drawn from the Tertiary Institutions Service Centre database and the UWA Student Information Management System) or the overall UWA undergraduate student body.

Area of study The following charts show the mix of degree-specific majors nominated by BPhil (Hons) students, and compares it the ‘Areas of Interest’ for commencing undergraduate students with ATARs of 98 or above, nominated as they accepted their offers during the 2012 admissions exercise.

Chart 1: Areas of interest declared by enrolling students with ATARs of 98+7

Chart 2: Degree-specific majors declared by BPhil (Hons) students7

Overall, the spread of study areas are fairly similar, with Engineering Science featuring prominently for both groups. The major difference is the absence of majors from the Faculty of Law8 for BPhil (Hons) students. However, eight BPhil (Hons) students also hold Assured Entry Pathway places for Law, and another six have AEPs for Medicine.

7 Source: Student Information Management System data extraction, May 2012. 8 Business Law (Bachelor of Commerce) and Law and Society (Bachelor of Arts).

Arts 13%

Business 12% Design

1% Law 9%

Engineering 37%

Biomedical Science

12%

Physics 3% Other

Science 13%

Areas of interest: ATAR 98+

Arts 21%

Business 7%

Design 0% Law

0%

Engineering 29%

Biomedical Science

7%

Physics 17%

Other Science

19%

Degree-specific majors: BPhil(Hons)

E15

Gender

Charts 3, 4: Gender balance, BPhil (Hons) vs ATAR 98+ students.9

It is clear that the BPhil (Hons) is dominated more by males than is the case for the wider population of ATAR 98+ students. However, it is consistent with the gender imbalance evident at the upper extremity of the ATAR distribution, as the following table shows.

Table 3: Gender balance, ATARs 98+, BPhil (Hons)

The data reflect all WA school-leaving students with ATARs on 98+, not just those who enrolled at UWA. To provide a point of comparison: the BPhil (Hons) minimum ATARs for non-equity places were 99.85 in Main Round and 99.65 in Second Round.

School background Against this indicator, the BPhil is again broadly consistent with the background of all students at UWA with ATARs of 98 and above. The notable difference is that students from Catholic schools are under-represented in the BPhil (Hons) compared to the broader sample. However, the mix of school backgrounds is consistent with that of all TISC applicants with ATARs of 99.5+.

Chart 5: School backgrounds of WA students with ATARs 98+10

9 Source: SIMS data extraction, TISC data extraction, May 2012. 10 Source: TISC data extraction, May 2012

Male 52%

Female 48%

Gender balance - ATAR 98+

Male 69%

Female 31%

Gender balance - BPhil (Hons)

Government 34%

Catholic 24%

Independent 42%

School sectors: ATAR 98+

ATAR Male Female 98.00+ 52% 48% 99.00+ 61% 39% 99.50+ 65% 35% BPhil 69% 31%

E16

Chart 6: School backgrounds of BPhil (Hons) students11

ATAR Government Independent Catholic 98.00+ 34% 42% 24% 99.00+ 35% 43% 22% 99.50+ 37% 48% 15% BPhil 37% 47% 16%

Table 4: School backgrounds of WA students with ATARs 98+, BPhil (Hons) students10

Rural background In terms of representation of students from rural areas, the BPhil (Hons) cohort compares very favourably with the broader population of all students with ATARs of 98+. As well as the three students admitted under the rural background equity places, another three students from rural areas were ranked high enough to be considered within the standard quota. This brings the proportion of students from rural high school backgrounds to 16%, significantly higher than the proportion in the general TISC population at high ATAR levels.

ATAR Metro Rural 98.00+ 94% 6% 99.00+ 95% 5% 99.50+ 94% 6% BPhil 84% 16%

Table 4: Proportion of students with ATAR 98+ from metropolitan and rural secondary schools12

Low Socio-Economic Status Thanks to the establishment of additional places earmarked for students from low SES and/or rural backgrounds, three of the current BPhil (Hons) cohort (7.8%) are identified as being from low SES backgrounds. The access rate13 at UWA for low SES students overall is 7.34% (2011).14 It should be noted, however, that, while eligibility for low SES places in the BPhil was determined by receipt of dependent Youth Allowance payments during Year 12 (to ensure consistency between eligibility criteria for other admissions-based equity initiatives, eg: Fairway UWA, UWay), the University figure is based on the classification of students’ home address census districts.

Students from non-English-speaking backgrounds (NESB) Students are classified as NESB if they speak a language other than English at home, were not born in Australia and arrived in the country within the last ten years. The overall figure for UWA is 4.12% (2011)6, compared to the BPhil (Hons) proportion of 5.2%.

11 Source: SIMS data extraction, May 2012 12 Source: TISC data extraction, May 2012. 13 The access rate shows the number of commencing students in each equity group as a percentage of total commencing domestic students who have permanent home residence in Australia. 14 Source: Table 7.1, Selected Performance Indicators 2011, Planning Services, UWA.

Government 37%

Catholic 16%

Independent 47%

School sectors: BPhil (Hons)

E17

Indigenous students Overall, the access rate at UWA for students who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is 1.64%13. There are currently no indigenous students enrolled in current BPhil (Hons). One indigenous student considered taking up a place during the 2012 admissions exercise, but eventually declined the offer.

Students with a disability Three BPhil (Hons) students have nominated that they have a disability, impairment or long-term medical condition (7.8% of the cohort). The comparison figure for the commencing student cohort at UWA is 7.51%13.

Conclusion The commencing BPhil (Hons) cohort of 2012, selected on the basis of ATAR only, and with specific sub-quotas for indigenous, low SES and rural students, is made up of students who have all achieved outstanding academic results, from a diverse range of backgrounds – at least equivalent to the overall student population at the same level of academic achievement.

E18

Appendix 1: BPhil (Hons) Ranking sheet – domestic undergraduate admissions 2012

APP RANK ATAR TEA SEX SCHOOL

TYPE RURAL LOW SES PREF 1 PREF 1

COURSE MR

OFFER MR OFFER COURSE

MR RESPONSE

R2 OFFER

R2 RESPONSE

LATE OFFER

LATE OFFER

RESPONSE COUNT

1 99.95 394.3 M Govt - metro UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil UWBPH BPhil (Hons) ENROL - 1

2 99.95 393.4 M Cath - metro UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil ENROL - 2

3 99.95 393.0 M Ind - metro UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil ENROL - 3

4 99.95 392.0 F Cath - metro UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil ENROL - 4

5 99.95 391.7 M Ind - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWBPH BPhil (Hons) ENROL - 5

6 99.95 391.0 F Govt - metro UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil LAPSE - -

7 99.95 388.7 M Ind - metro UWPHE AEP Eng/BPhil UWPHE ENROL - 6

8 99.95 387.6 M Govt - metro UWLAW AEP Law UWLAW ENROL - -


10 99.95 386.1 M Cath - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWBPH BPhil (Hons) ENROL - 8

11 99.95 385.9 M Ind - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWCOM - UWBPH DEFER -

12 99.95 385.3 F Govt - metro UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil ENROL - 9

13 99.95 385.0 F Interstate UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil CUSTC - CUSTC LAPSE -

14 99.95 385.0 F Interstate UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil UWBPH BPhil (Hons) - UWBPH LAPSE -



17 99.90 383.6 M Govt - metro UWPHE AEP Eng/BPhil UWPHE ENROL - 12

18 99.90 383.2 F Ind - metro UWPHE AEP Eng/BPhil UWPHE LAPSE - -

19 99.90 382.7 M Ind - metro UWLAW AEP Law UWSBM - UWLAW ENROL -

20 99.90 382.6 M Ind - metro UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil LAPSE - -

21 99.90 382.1 M Ind - metro UWLAW AEP Law UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil - UWLAW ENROL -

22 99.90 381.6 M Cath - metro UWMED AEP Med UWMED ENROL - -

23 99.90 381.1 M Ind - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWBPH BPhil (Hons) LAPSE - -

24 99.90 381.1 M Ind - metro UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil DEFER - -

25 99.90 381.0 F Ind - metro UWART Arts UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil - UWART ENROL -

26 99.90 379.9 M Ind - metro UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil ENROL - 13

27 99.90 379.9 M Govt - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWBPH BPhil (Hons) LAPSE - -

28 99.90 379.5 F Ind - metro UWMED AEP Med UWMED ENROL - -

E19



COURSE MR


MR RESPONSE

R2 OFFER

R2 RESPONSE

LATE OFFER

LATE OFFER

RESPONSE COUNT

29 99.90 379.2 M Ind - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWBPH BPhil (Hons) ENROL - 14

30 99.90 378.7 F Ind - metro UWMED AEP Med UWMED ENROL - -

31 99.90 377.7 M Govt - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWBPH BPhil (Hons) ENROL - 15


33 99.90 377.6 F Interstate UWMED AEP Med N/A - -

34 99.90 377.6 F Interstate UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil N/A - -


36 99.90 377.6 M Interstate UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil N/A - -

37 99.90 377.6 F Interstate UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil N/A - -

38 99.85 377.3 M Govt - metro UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil UWPHE ENROL - 17

39 99.85 376.8 M Ind - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWBPH BPhil (Hons) LAPSE - -

40 99.85 375.7 M Govt - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWBPH BPhil (Hons) ENROL - 18

41 99.85 375.6 F Govt - metro UWDNT AEP Dent UWDNT ENROL -

-

42 99.85 374.2 M Ind - metro UWBPH AEP Med (Bonded) UWBPH BPhil (Hons) LAPSE - -

43 99.85 372.7 F Cath - metro UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil ENROL -

19

44 99.85 372.7 M Interstate UWMED AEP Med N/A - -

45 99.85 372.7 M Interstate UWMED AEP Med UWLAW - UWLAW LAPSE -

46 99.85 372.7 F Interstate UWMED AEP Med UWLAW - UWLAW LAPSE -

47 99.80 372.6 F Ind - metro UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil UWCOM - UWPHL ENROL 20

48 99.80 372.3 M Govt - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWCOM - UWBPH ENROL 21

49 99.80 372.0 M Cath - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWENG - UWBPH LAPSE -

50 99.80 371.3 F Govt - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWART - UWBPH LAPSE -

51 99.80 370.9 F Govt - rural Y UWMED AEP Med UWMED ENROL - - -

52 99.80 370.9 F Govt - metro UWPHE AEP Eng/BPhil UWENG - UWPHE LAPSE -

53 99.80 370.6 F Cath - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWSPS - UWBPH ENROL 22

54 99.80 370.5 M Cath - metro UWLAW AEP Law UWLAW ENROL - - -

55 99.80 369.9 M Interstate UWMED AEP Med UWLAW - UWLAW LAPSE -

56 99.80 369.9 F Interstate UWMED AEP Med N/A - - -

57 99.75 369.2 M Govt - metro UWMED AEP Med UWMED ENROL - - -

58 99.75 369.1 M Ind - metro UWPHE AEP Eng/BPhil UWENG - UWPHE ENROL 23

Main Round cutoff point

E20



COURSE MR


MR RESPONSE

R2 OFFER

R2 RESPONSE

LATE OFFER

LATE OFFER

RESPONSE COUNT

59 99.75 368.7 M Ind - rural Y CUBEC Curtin - Eng CUBEC DEFER - - -

60 99.75 367.6 M Ind - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWBPH LAPSE -

61 99.75 367.5 M Interstate UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil N/A - - -

62 99.70 367.4 F Govt - metro UWMED AEP Med UWMED ENROL - - 63 99.70 367.2 M Ind - rural Y UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWBPH BPhil (Hons) ENROL - 24

64 99.70 367.2 M Ind - metro UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil UWLAW - UWPHL LAPSE -

65 99.70 367.2 M Catt - rural Y UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWBPH BPhil (Hons) ENROL - 25

66 99.70 367.1 M Cath - metro UWMED AEP Med UWENG - UWENG ENROL -

67 99.70 366.5 M Ind - metro UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil UWLAW - UWPHL ENROL 26

68 99.70 366.4 F Govt - metro Y UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWBPH BPhil (Hons) ENROL - 27

69 99.70 366.1 F Govt - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWART - UWBPH ENROL 28

70 99.70 364.9 F Govt - metro UWPHE AEP Eng/BPhil UWENG - UWPHE ENROL 29

71 99.70 364.3 M Ind - metro EAMJC ECU - Music EAMJC ENROL - - -

72 99.70 364.3 M Interstate UWENG AEP Engineering UWENG ENROL - - -

73 99.70 364.3 M Interstate UWMED AEP Med UWSBM - UWBPH LAPSE -

74 99.70 364.3 F Interstate UWMED AEP Med MULLC - MULLC LAPSE

-

75 99.70 364.3 F Interstate UWMED AEP Med N/A - - -


-

77 99.70 364.3 M Interstate UWMED AEP Med N/A - - -

78 99.70 364.3 M Interstate UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil CUHPC - CUHPC LAPSE -

79 99.70 364.3 M Interstate UWMED AEP Med UWSHS - UWSHS LAPSE -

80 99.65 364.2 M Ind - metro UWMED AEP Med UWSBM - UWSBM ENROL -

81 99.65 363.7 F Ind - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWART ENROL - - -

82 99.65 363.4 F Govt - metro EAMUC ECU - Music EAMUC ENROL - - -

83 99.65 362.8 M Govt - metro UWSPS Physical Science UWSPS ENROL - - -

84 99.65 362.3 M Ind - metro UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil UWLAW - UWLAW - UWPHL ENROL 30

85 99.65 362.3 M Ind - metro UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil UWLAW - UWLAW - UWPHL ENROL 31

86 99.65 361.9 M Govt - metro UWMED AEP Med UWENG - UWMED ENROL -

87 99.65 361.8 M Ind - metro UWPHE AEP Eng/BPhil UWENG - UWENG - UWPHE LAPSE -

88 99.65 361.5 M Govt - metro UWENG AEP Engineering UWENG ENROL - -

Second Round cutoff point

E21



COURSE MR


MR RESPONSE

R2 OFFER

R2 RESPONSE

LATE OFFER

LATE OFFER

RESPONSE COUNT

89 99.65 361.0 M Ind - metro UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWSPS - UWENG UWBPH ENROL 32

90 99.65 360.9 M Ind - rural Y UWBMP AEP Med (Bonded) UWDES - UWBMP ENROL -

91 99.65 360.8 F Ind - metro UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil UWSBM - UWSBM UWBPH LAPSE -

92 99.65 360.6 M Interstate UWMED AEP Med CUSWC ENROL - - 93 99.65 360.6 F Interstate UWMED AEP Med UWSBM - UWSBM LAPSE

-

94 99.65 360.6 F Interstate Y UWMED AEP Med N/A - -

95 99.65 360.6 M Interstate UWMED AEP Med N/A -

-

96 99.65 360.6 F Interstate Y UWMED AEP Med N/A - -

97 99.65 360.6 F Interstate UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil UWLAW ENROL - -

98 99.65 360.6 F Interstate UWMED AEP Med N/A - 99 Applicant ineligible for equity place

100 99.60 360.0 F Ind - rural Y UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil ENROL -

1

101-107 Applicants ineligible for equity places

108 99.60 358.0 F Interstate Y UWPHM AEP Med/BPhil UWBPH BPhil (Hons) - UWBPH LAPSE -


113 99.55 356.9 M Govt - metro Y UWPHE AEP Eng/BPhil UWENG - UWPHE ENROL

2


124 99.50 354.3 M Govt - rural Y UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWSPS - UWBPH ENROL 3


167 99.35 348.3 F Govt - metro Y UWPHL AEP Law/BPhil UWLAW - UWLAW - UWPHL ENROL 4


228 99.05 340.5 M Ind - metro Y UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWSPS ENROL UWBPH LAPSE -


252 98.85 336.8 M Ind - metro Y UWPHE AEP Eng/BPhil UWENG - UWENG - UWPHE ENROL 5


261 98.70 334.9 F Ind - rural Y UWBPH BPhil (Hons) UWART DEFERRED -


268 98.65 334.2 M Govt - rural Y UWPHE AEP Eng/BPhil UWENG - UWENG - UWPHE ENROL 6

Late offers cutoff point

Equity places

E22

Appendix 2: Average mark in first year at UWA v ATAR, 2009 + 2010

Source: Institutional Research Unit, May 2012

Average mark in first year at UWA v ATAR, 2009 + 2010 combined (n=5328 students)ATAR bands correspond to 11 x 15-point TEA bands between 235 and 400

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

76.5-81.80 81.80-86.60 86.60-90.70 90.70-93.85 93.85-96.10 96.10-97.75 97.75-98.75 98.75-99.40 99.40-99.70 99.70-99.90 99.9-99.95

ATAR band

Ave

rage

mar

k

E23

review of bachelor of philosophy (honours) selection processes · data sources (atar, quantitative...

Documents