The Admissions Transparency Implementation Working Group (IWG) released a draft implementation plan for public consultation. It identified proposed actions that higher education sector stakeholders and relevant government agencies could commit to.
On this page:
Download the draft implementation plan.
Comments on the draft plan were sought from all interested parties, including current and prospective higher education students, their parents and influencers, senior secondary education stakeholders such as school principals and career educators, universities and other higher education providers, employers, industry, professional associations and any other interested stakeholders.
54 written submissions were received. The IWG also held a series of meetings with key stakeholders to inform their consideration. A high level summary of feedback received through the consultations is available .
The IWG posed a series of consultation questions to guide stakeholder feedback:
- Is the proposed approach likely to be effective in increasing transparency and public understanding of how contemporary admissions to higher education work?
- How achievable are the proposed implementation timelines, including commitments to deliver a 'best endeavours' version of the proposed information sets to inform students applying to enter study in the 2018 academic year?
- If there would be difficulty in delivering the commitments proposed, what could be changed to make them achievable?
- Do you have any comments on the proposed four broad groupings to describe the basis of admission for applicants to higher education?
- Recent secondary education
- Previous higher education study
- Previous vocational education and training (VET) study
- Work and life experience
- Do you agree that the proposed approach to Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) thresholds is reasonable (i.e. replacing the use of the terms "cut-off" and "clearly in" with functional terms describing the lowest ATAR made an offer in the relevant period?). What issues or difficulties, if any, might this raise?
- Do the proposed "information sets" meet the need identified by the Higher Education Standards Panel for comparability of the information available from different providers about the requirements to be admitted to study at each institution and each course that they deliver?
- Does the proposed approach set out in the draft implementation plan adequately inform prospective students about admission options or pathways that do not use ATAR? If not, how might this information be improved?
- Any other feedback you wish to provide on the draft implementation plan and the commitments it outlines is very welcome.
Written submissions received
- Name Withheld
- University of Western Australia
- Deakin University
- Box Hill Institute
- NSW Department of Education
- University of Newcastle
- Griffith University
- Tertiary Institutions Services Centre
- Queensland University of Technology
- Edith Cowan University
- David Perry Alphacrucis College
- University of Notre Dame
- Central Queensland University
- Regional Universities Network
- Group of Eight
- University of Sydney
- Victoria University
- Heads of Student Administration Network
- University of Technology Sydney
- Macquarie University
- RMIT University
- Australian Technology Network
- University of South Australia
- Charles Sturt University
- University of Divinity
- University of Southern Queensland
- University of Wollongong
- Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre
- Swinburne University
- University of Queensland
- La Trobe University
- Southern Cross University
- Australian Council for Private Education and Training
- Australian Council of State School Organisations
- Open University Australia
- JMC Academy
- Holmesglen Institute
- TAFE NSW
- University of Tasmania
- Universities Australia
- Career Industry Council of Australia
- Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership
- Council of Private Higher Education
- Northern Territory Department of Education
- Innovative Research Universities