As reported by The Guardian, the latest fortnightly Essential Research poll brings no change on two-party preferred, with Labor maintaining its 53-47 lead. As always, primary votes will be with us later today. The poll also contains a suite of findings on immigration, which concur with Newspoll in finding the existing level is perceived as too high. Sixty-four per cent rated there had been too much immigration over the past decade, compared with 50% when the question was last asked in October 2016, and 54% considered the rate of population growth too fast, up from 45% in 2013. Forty-seven per cent wanted fewer short-term working visas, which 63% believed undermined the capacity of Australians to find work, and 62% agreed with the proposition that immigration should be wound back until the necessary infrastructure is in place. Nonetheless, 55% supported the proposition that “multiculturalism and cultural diversity has enriched the social and economic lives of all Australians”, and 61% felt immigration had made a positive contribution overall.
UPDATE: Full report here. Coalition down one to 37%, Labor down one to 36%, Greens up one to 11%, One Nation up one to 8%.
VE, I don’t think people want a high ATAR for recognition at uni. I was of the understanding that high ATARs gave you more choice of courses. For instance, a high ATAR is required to do medicine.
I remember talking to students doing medicine and some of them said the only reason they got in was their high biblical studies score. I suppose a lot of dumb students do it and therefore was ‘marked up’.
Zoomster,
I have to disagree. There is nothing in that post that changes my mind. If you want a high ATAR, choose subjects that are full of dimwits.
Note that I am not saying choose easy subjects. I am saying choose subjects which are perceived to be easy, so they attract dimwits. The scaling assumes each subject has students which are, on average, of equal calibre, so by comparing students to other students in the same subject the relative difficulties between subjects can be allowed for. But in reality this assumption is just not valid.
If I were a student who wants to get the maximum ATAR at any cost, I would try to choose subjects with as high a proportion as possible of dipsticks (or the lowest proportion of geniuses).
PeeBee
No, it would be marked down (if anything).
If every student at a particular school has to do a certain subject (and BS is compulsory at some religious schools) then you’re more likely to get a balanced range of students (that is, a ‘normal’ parabolic curve of achievement).
‘Dumb’ students doing a subject generally leads to the subject being marked down rather than marked up (so my clever nephew – now doing Medicine – had his scores scaled down because he was a high achiever in an easy subject).
Thanks zoomster. I had thought Kate was a character on Game of Thrones, who married some weirdo prince
On Finland’s UBI trial. I think we can conclude at these early stages it is politically acceptable to have a one payment no punishment hoop system for those on welfare.
The political battle is obviously going to be about making it truly universal.
Actually, you get spanked in dumwit-laden subjects unless you do exceedingly well, and those subjects tend to have a larger candidature, which also hurts on scaling. When my cousin was going through HS, I said the way you get decently scaled was low-candidature subjects, like languages and geology etc and do well.
@Peebee – I covered that with “Recognise that you probably don’t want to study the high ATAR course your parents are pushing you towards.” Medicine is a long, difficult struggle. The majority of people going into it straight from school are not choosing it, their parents are.
Regardless, if it is your dream to become a doctor, you should study chemistry and biology in high school, because you find them interesting and the knowledge you gain from them will help you. You should not choose basket weaving to rig the ATAR because you think going straight into medicine from high school is the only option.
If that means you have to go into undergrad Chemistry/Biology and grad entry medicine, instead of undergrad medicine, then that’s fine. I think you lose a year, but you have a chem/bio degree that will get you into a large variety of jobs. You may find something within those courses that interests you as much as medicine would have.
Zoomster, I must be missing something here and I think AM may also be missing the point.
I thought if a lot of students do poorly in a subject, the subject would be marked up as the distribution of raw scores would be skewed to the lower end. I am wrong here?
When you wrote BS to describe the subject, I thought for a second you were being a little harsh. Apt but not harsh.
If you’d like to join me in also nominating yourself to be an IPA Research Fellow, just add your name below & we’ll have a ceremony this Friday.
I wouldn’t have time for all of those obligatory ABC appearances
guytaur @ #55 Tuesday, April 24th, 2018 – 7:00 am
How can you conclude that when they have decided not to expand it and say that they prefer to explore other options?
It doesn’t seem that it is politically acceptable to the current Finnish Government! 🙂
Barney
You can conclude that by the fact that the government had no problem with restricting it to just those receiving welfare. The conservative government balked at extending the trial to working people.
guytaur @ #61 Tuesday, April 24th, 2018 – 7:10 am
Closing down the trial is completely a political decision as there are no results yet to justify an action one way or the other.
That certainly suggests a lack of political will on the Government’s part.
Barney
Yes exactly. The political will to extend it to working people. The political will was there for welfare only as there was acceptance of doing the trial when it was restricted to that.
Thus we can conclude the political will was there when restricted to welfare recipients.
[Ante Meridian says:
Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:22 am
The problem with ATAR is that it only works if the students of every subject are equally representative of the population of students as a whole. But that’s doesn’t happen. Some subjects attract an average of much brighter or dimmer students than others.
Thus, a dipstick who finishes top of a subject filled with lesser dipsticks will get a higher ATAR than a genius who comes last in a subject chock-a-block with even greater geniuses. That’s why, if you’re a bright student, you are tactically better off choosing a subject which is perceived to be easier and therefore attracts a higher proportion of low achievers.]
As Zoomster states, you are completely wrong.
My son received an ATAR of over 98% without getting a score in any subject as high as 40.
He did this in large part by getting 38 for Latin. Because the few other kids who did Latin got a whole heap of 50s in their other subjects his scored was scaled way up. He then received the additional 5 for doing a language and his scaled score for Latin was 52. In other words his 38 for Latin gave him a result higher than was even possible in most other subjects.
ATAR is warped. Its really warped if you get an ATAR after the NSW HSC which is already warped.
Ides
Yes it promotes some subjects over others. Warped by design.
I disagree with that warping. Let students choose on what they want to study not what educators think should be force fed them. If people want to study Latin offer it as a course on an equal basis. Not promote it at the expense of living languages in use today that are popular.
Note I am not saying don’t offer Latin courses. Just an equal test standard.
guytaur @ #63 Tuesday, April 24th, 2018 – 7:19 am
“we” please leave me out.
Be honest for change and use the pronoun “I”.
It is a trial to gather evidence, that does not imply will and it certainly doesn’t imply on going support for the idea.
And there doesn’t seem to be any political will to continue it for those on welfare as the Government has said it is exploring other options.
Barney
The government is exploring other options to specifically kill the idea of universal income. They have gone back to the jump through hoops thing.
I use the word we can conclude because I don’t think I am alone in this conclusion. Note can is the word I use not the word must.
Until they were asked to extend it to working people they were fine with the trial. So at this early stage we can conclude the two years of trial restricted to those on welfare was acceptable politically.
If it was not the government would have closed down the trials much earlier or not even allowed the trials to commence.
Windhover,
I’m still not convinced.
Yes, obviously bonus points make a difference.
And obviously the best way to get a high ATAR is to do really well on the most difficult subjects. That’s like telling a batsman in cricket that the best strategy is to score runs fast without getting out.
But for ordinary mortals looking to wring out every last point to edge into the University course of their choice, I still contend the scaling is based on a false premise and so it’s best to choose the weakest competition.
In NSW it used to be that students in a course for which the cohort did poorly in the rest of their subjects (basket weaving let’s say) got marked down, and those who did top level english or modern history or Ext 2 maths got marked up because their cohort did well on other subjects.
But as far as I can tell this is no longer the case with maths in NSW. Standard (used to be General) maths appears to be getting a better mark than you would expect compared with Advanced or the Extensions.
Students are voting with their feet, and choosing Standard Maths. To the detriment of their ability to do STEM subjects in further studies, whether that be at TAFE or University. But they believe it will get them a higher mark for their HSC.
Please note that I do not intend to denigrate basket weaving, a no doubt worthy pursuit. If basket weaving is your thing, go for it.
I’ve been out of this loop for a long time but I would have prerequisite subjects for admission to a University course and this would be the deciding factor when allocating places for the course.
So if you wanted to study at University, your total score would determine if you could be considered for a course but only your scores in prerequisite subjects would be considered to rank you and determine who is offered a place.
That would eliminate the problem of trying to compare apples with oranges. 🙂
guytaur @ #68 Tuesday, April 24th, 2018 – 7:40 am
BS
Barney
Nope. BS is trying to make out the political will is against UBI at all. If that was the case and the political will was not there for one payment for all on welfare the trials would not have commenced in the first place.
Thats a perfectly logical conclusion to take.
Your BS is not logical.
The government showed political will when it commissioned and supported the trials for two years.
The whole principle behind ATARs and HSC result where the final mark is distilled into a single number is never indicative of the student’s capabilities.
When my kids went through in NSW I was working at the school so saw it from both sides.
My son who was accelerated in Maths and science and did one university subject actually studied 13 units for the HSC even though they only count the 10 best units.
He did the HSC exam for Chemistry in year 11 and this was counted in his UAI because that year the chemistry exam was deemed as incredibly hard (he got 76% in the exam but the score was raised to a much higher mark for his HSC). The university course he did in Year 12 was NOT counted, even though he got a high distinction for the course, because the cohort was too small for comparison purposes (and didn’t I complain about that!)
His software/technology subject was counted, he ranked #1 in the school, but the cohort from the school averaged much lower in the course of the year and his mark was scaled way down.
Subjects in NSW were ranked by overall cohort and then reranked according to the overall school cohort’s results.
The scaling they used was quite skewed in some instances and his UAI was much lower than we/the school expected – thus he didn’t enter the uni course he wanted. They told him after the fact that he should have studied the top level of English and he would have had his overall marks scaled up instead of down. His 4 unit maths was NOT counted in the results. Go figure.
HOWEVER, in his first year at Sydney uni, his capabilities came to the fore and he made the dean’s honours list … and at the end of first year, he transferred into the course he desired to enrol in from the get-go.
So there are ways and means. His UAI was a laugh being scaled lower than his abilities because of his school’s overall results and arbitrary scaling … and we joke about it now he is earning more $$ than anyone we know his age. He’s never been out of a job since graduating and is often head-hunted.
Every year the scaling rules change too – so planning is really difficult.
I have a really, really radical idea for university education (and school for that matter). It would be much, much cheaper, fairer and better for the students.
Here is how it might go.
1. Limit the number of first year courses to perhaps 6-10 nation wide (pretty much as it was when I went to uni).
i) There would for example be a basic physical science science course (maths, physics, chemistry plus one elective -scientists and engineers would do this
ii) There would be a biological science course -mammalian/human physiology, chemistry, genetics, There may be debate as to which are core but I see these as pretty fundamental. These would be undertaken by those seeking to be biologists and all those thinking of the health professions. Again an elective
iii) Basic economics. Maths, statistics, economics – plus an elective
1v) Languages: A core subject focusing on English grammar and writing, one language of choice, two electives
v) Basic writing and literature and communication – English literature (one semester classics and one post WWII), the same Grammar subject as for languages, a subject focusing on communication in the modern world – all its forms
vi) Politics/philosophy: Basics survey of world politics today, geography, modern history (one semester Europe and Americas, One asia/Middle east,
vii) Fine arts: Any one of the above courses with the elective chosen from music, art history, drama etc
Viii) History: modern History, Ancient History, pus two electives
Now I may have left out some core courses but I suspect that a very effective first year could be put together from one of the ones above.
Now as you may guess these core subjects are generally pretty standard and I see no reason why they should be taught at high cost universities. You do not need high paid professors to teach these basic first year units. With the exception of the Arts type subjects they are pretty non controversial – or the course content could be made such.
2. My idea is that first year university is taught locally in regional HIGH schools, preferably as evening or night courses. So when the school kids leave at 3 PM, the University courses start. You can make good use of video courses and lecture notes. The reality is that these days many, indeed most students do not bother to attend lectures at all relying on the video tapes of lectures and course notes. With down loading of texts books and other materials even the need for university libraries is pretty obsolete (for those in first year). Basically tutors would be made available in courses scattered acrosss the country. Every kid regardless of parental income or their school would have EXACTLY the same level of tuition.
3. The cost for this first year would be kept very very low, perhaps something like $600 per semester ie $150 per unit.
4. Written assignments would be marked centrally. They would NOT form part of the assessment mark but would be compulsory
5. There would be public examinations every 6 months.
6. At the completion of the first year students could then start to attend their university of choice although in many many cases perhaps 50% of the course subjects could also be delivered in the same way, keeping the costs much lower. For example special courses could be developed for country kids such that they could rearrange second and third year programs to allow them to spend two full years at home especially if combines with some brief summer schools/redidential course to catch up with any practical experiences needed.
The reality is that with the huge number of kids at university, any sense of a special relationship with professors and the sort of intellectual stimulation for first and second year students, which while desirable is a thing of the past and indeed has been for the last 50 years. I know that in my first two years at university, we interacted solely with the tutors (usually Phd students just a few years older than ourselves) and one on one discussions with the lecturers was virtually non existent. This did change in third year of course and I think THAT is the time when we move the more traditional university structure.
Instead of a HEX debt of $40,000 a student say wanting to become a teacher or economist or scientist or accountant could shave $7-15,000 off their degree costs.
don @ #70 Tuesday, April 24th, 2018 – 10:45 am
If this discussion is on the same article I read a day or so ago, one of the most disturbing aspects was courses like Engineering not requiring ANY maths at a couple of Universities and only General Maths at others.
This is simply outrageous.
Oh, and for zoomster and a couple of others blindly following her, a Normal Distribution is not a parabola.
It seems that Twitter is dead to me. Anyone else having the same problem?
GT:
Yes it promotes some subjects over others. Warped by design.
I disagree with that warping. Let students choose on what they want to study not what educators think should be force fed them. If people want to study Latin offer it as a course on an equal basis. Not promote it at the expense of living languages in use today that are popular.
Note I am not saying don’t offer Latin courses. Just an equal test standard.
I am totally in favour of what you call warping.
Why should someone doing a subject which does not need high skills or application get equal treatment with someone doing a subject which does?
And I wish I had been able to do Latin for the HSC. I loved it and did it till year 10.
Don
You are talking about ranking subjects. I think that should come after the testing not as part of the testing.
Then the arguments for and against the ranking of subjects can be argued on their merits.
That means you can argue that maths should or should not be part of an engineering course as Bemused notes.
Or as Barney put it test the talents on the subjects and not try and compare apples with oranges.
Barney,
Your idea for basing university entry only on subjects relevant to the course in question has zero chance of being adopted by any politicians or academics anywhere because it’s too bleedin’ obvious. Thus we will continue with the obsession of reducing performance in disparate disciplines to a single meaningless number.
Oh, and a disclaimer. I don’t have any offspring, so haven’t had any direct contact with this madness. Which is probably just as well.
It’s clearly non-useful to rank people who attempt an easy course and do well against people who attempt a difficult course and do poorly (or even average). They haven’t been measured by the same metric.
Standardized Testing is the answer. 🙂
@Ante – The problem with that is, you have to choose what to do with your life at 15. It’s quite early, for most people.
Edit: You could also game the system easily by taking one course related to the degree you want, and then fill the remainder of your courses with irrelevant things, then simply don’t do any work on the irrelevant ones and study hard on your single relevant subject.
Can we have a thread for discussing Essential Research polling, please?
Essential is saying Newspoll is an outlier.
“Can we have a thread for discussing Essential Research polling, please?”
Umm.. This is the thread.
Exactly.
Fulvio
Ironic that everyone wanted to have their pennyworth when the coalition seemed to be improving, but are silent when things are “back to normal”. 🙂
Invariably sagacious Victoria opined that today’s Essential Poll will be afforded scant attention in the MSM.
While I can see why our large MSM corporations, who will be the beneficiaries of Turnbull’s egregious tax cut giveaway, would wish to downplay another 53-47 2PP polling result for Labor, the reason for SBS News or ABC News low coverage of this Essential poll has got me stumped.
Perhaps Mr Bowe might introduce an ” off topic ” thread for those that are inclined to use it for the…….Energy……RGR………ATA wars……just a suggestion..lol
Sorry, Fulvio.
Umm… let’s see…
It looks like the important difference between Essential and Newspoll is how they are allocating preferences. The question is, which of them is correct (if either)?
How’s that?
Agree Sonar – and when you include the ‘changed’ methodology for Newspoll … it must be seen that ALP is somewhere between 52/53 in actual score
Lizzie
Its because its the expected result. Newspoll is now either an outlier as Sohar notes or Essential is.
We won’t know until the election due to Newspoll changing its methodology. However as up until now Newspoll methodology was considered reliable. I think the weight remains on Newspoll to confirm its accuracy under the new methodology.
Edit: Weight of evidence sorry
Lizzie
Essential obviously not fitting the narrative of kill bill
Yesterday the ABC were spruiking, inter-alia, not only the result of Newspoll,, but that the margin of error was 2%.
When did you last hear of the “margin of error” on ABC 7pm news?
Fulvio
I wasn’t aware that the ABC knew of the expression!!
@ lizzie – we’ve had two polls this week, both of which show the Coalition in their normal 52-53 range.
Neither was particularly noteworthy due to the lack of any movement in polls for well over a year. The Australian’s coverage of Newspoll was noteworthy due to some errors and misinterpretations in it.
bemused
I’m not trying to go for nuance here – I’m giving a basic background. I have provided a link to a more detailed explanation of how scaling works and how ATAR scores are arrived at.
I could bore the socks off people by using more esoteric (and thus more accurate) terminology, but people who want their socks bored off that way can follow the link.
Turd polishing requires margin of error input i.e. a clean rag every now and then!
FS
You’d think you’d never been on PB before. We discuss a range of topics, including the ffing cricket.
Prof.Higgins
I’ll take sagacious anytime. Cheers!! 😀