CQUniversity Response to Draft Admissions Transparency
Implementation Plan
1.
Is the proposed approach likely to be effective in increasing transparency and
public understanding of how contemporary admissions to higher education work?
CQUniversity applauds the Government’s stance on its aim to improve the transparency of
national higher education admissions processes and we believe the steps outlined in the Im
plementation Plan will go a long way towards achieving that aim.
CQUniversity is in the fortunate position of already operating with a high degree of transpare
ncy in our admissions processes and we are very supportive of any measures that widen the
accessibility of information to prospective students as well as improving the accountability of
all providers in the information they provide.
As a regional University with a national footprint, any measures to achieve transparency,
consistency and comparability of information to prospective students is supported.
2.
How achievable are the proposed implementation timelines, including commitme
nts to deliver a ‘best endeavours’ version of the proposed information sets to info
rm students applying to enter study in the 2018 academic year?
We are confident that CQUniversity’s admissions information is already very transparent in ter
ms of what is publicly available, however we are concerned about meeting the timelines for hig
her education providers to have information published in the required format by August
2017, particularly the requirement to use agreed common terminology. Like many other
universities, our publications for the 2018 academic year will be completed before that date.
At CQUniversity we offer more than 100 courses in 26 locations throughout Australia and partici
pate in five Tertiary Admissions Centres. It will take considerable time and resources to comple
te the necessary information sets in the timeframe.
We would, however, be willing and able to publish a smaller subset of information for each c
ourse (which might not have the nationally agreed common terminology) by the proposed d
ate.
We are concerned that if this process is rushed it will only result in greater confusion for
prospective students.
3.
If there would be difficulty in delivering the commitments proposed, what could be
changed to make them achievable?
We think a more achievable timeline would be to have all information available for the 2019
academic year, and for the interim measure to be a reduced subset of information for 2018.
4.
Do you have any comments on the proposed four broad groupings to describe the
basis of admission for applicants to higher education?
a. Recent secondary education
b. Previous higher education study
c. Previous vocational education and training (VET) study
d. Work and life experience
The proposed groupings could become very confusing for prospective students as we know ma
ny students seeking admission come from a broad and varied educational and work/life backgro
und. We cannot see the benefits of this proposal and believe it may result in even less transpar
ency of the admissions processes.
There are other subsets of applicants that may be missing from these broad groupings or wo
uld be difficult to group. These include bridging/enabling studies;; interview, audition and port
folio admissions;; or other admissions tests (e.g., UMAT and STAT).
5.
Do you agree that the proposed approach to Australian Tertiary Admission Ran
k (ATAR) thresholds is reasonable (i.e. replacing the use of the terms “cut­off” and “clearly in” with functional terms describing the lowest ATAR made an off
er in the relevant period?). What issues or difficulties, if any, might this raise?
We agree with the need for consistency in terminology and language across the sector. There i
s some concern that there is a strong focus on the ATAR, when from a regional university persp
ective this applies to the minority of our applicants for admission. There needs to be transparen
cy in relation to the basis for all admissions.
We are also concerned that the algorithms to calculate the ATAR are not applied consistently
across the States and this leads to further confusion.
6.
Do the proposed “information sets” meet the need identified by the Higher
Education Standards Panel for comparability of the information available from d
ifferent providers about the requirements to be admitted to study at each institu
tion and each course that they deliver?
We agree with the intent of the information sets to provide transparency and comparability, ho
wever there are some omissions. For example, English language proficiency requirements are
another important element of the admissions process.
Page 2 of 3
There are also specific disciplines (e.g., Initial Teacher Education), that have additional
admission requirements.
Page 3 of 3
We also believe that the optional information in relation to student and campus services should
be removed, or only be required at a high level, as this is readily available information from all i
nstitutions and not easily included in a template, particularly for CQUniversity with a wide camp
us footprint and a diversity of campus models and services.
7.
Does the proposed approach set out in the draft implementation plan adequatel
y inform prospective students about admission options or pathways that do not us
e ATAR? If not, how might this information be improved?
We support an approach which provides clear, simplified information to prospective students, h
owever we remain concerned at the focus on ATAR and school leavers, when we know that le
ss than half of higher education students are admitted on this basis.
8.
Any other feedback you wish to provide on the draft implementation plan and the
commitments it outlines is very welcome.
It would be helpful if information already provided to the Government through other sources cou
ld be utilized and that an IT solution could be developed that reduces the burden on higher educ
ation providers for individually populating each information set.
The reforms are focused heavily on undergraduate applicants. Will there be any additional s
cope for postgraduate or honours courses to be included? Many of the TACs offer postgrad
uate services and it may be useful to have the same level of transparency of the admissions
processes for postgraduate courses.
CQUniversity, as a member or contributor to five Tertiary Admissions Centres, is particularly i
nterested in the statement that TACs will also develop and implement a more streamlined app
roach to accepting and managing applications for courses at institutions that have membershi
p of another TAC in a different jurisdiction. The plan states that this streamlined approach is e
xpected to reduce complexity and costs for prospective students. It is unclear how this will wo
rk in practice and we would welcome more detailed information on this initiative.
If you require any further information, please contact:
Jenny Roberts
Deputy Vice­Chancellor (Student Experience & Governance) CQUniversity
Rockhampton Qld 4701
Ph: 07 4930 6903
E-­mail: [email protected]
Page 4 of 3
12 May 2017
Page 5 of 3