Note: This is an updated version of a post I wrote around this time of year. As students move toward their end-of-year exams, I wish them all the best and hope that one day soon, we’ll see a shift from these high-stakes exams to something with more educational value.
As we move toward the end of the year, the current cohort of Year 12 students across Australia is gearing up for their final examinations—HSC, QCE, VCE, WACE, SACE, and NTCET—and the all-important ATAR (Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank). But here’s the thing: I’ve always felt that these exams are, frankly, a bit superfluous. They’re not a true reflection of a student’s entire schooling journey nor a reliable indicator of future success. Instead, they merely assess how well students have mastered the Year 12 curriculum and the specific subjects they chose to study in their final years of high school.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with having exams; after all, most educational systems worldwide use them. What perplexes me, however, is the enormous emphasis placed on these exams and, even more bewildering, the exorbitant cost associated with them. Today, I want to delve into the evidence (or lack thereof) supporting these exams, what the ATAR really represents, and why New South Wales is willing to spend $100 million on what essentially amounts to a university entrance exam.
Before we dissect this seemingly excessive expenditure, it’s essential to understand what the HSC (Higher School Certificate) is and why it has become significant enough to warrant $100+ million in spending. The HSC marks the completion of Year 12 and is awarded to students who fulfill the course requirements and sit for the HSC exams. Up until 2012, students could leave school after completing the School Certificate Exam, which has since been replaced by the Record of School Achievement (RoSA). The RoSA is issued to students who leave school after Year 10 if they are engaged in full-time employment or further study or when they turn 17 and decide to leave school.
For a long time, merely completing all required courses and assessments was enough to receive an HSC. However, this changed in 2020 with the introduction of a minimum literacy and numeracy requirement set at the Australian Core Skills Framework Level 3. This is slightly above the national minimum standard expected in Year 9, meaning students must achieve a baseline level of competence in these areas to be eligible for the HSC.
But let’s not get sidetracked. The core issue is that the HSC primarily serves to assess a student’s performance in Year 12, and there’s no minimum academic standard beyond the literacy and numeracy requirements. Essentially, the HSC alone doesn’t hold much value in indicating a student’s overall capabilities or readiness for life beyond school.
The ATAR: A Flawed Measure of Potential?
Now, let’s discuss the ATAR—the dreaded number that used to play a substantial role in determining university admissions. The ATAR is managed by the University Admissions Centre (UAC), which also processes most university applications. It’s important to understand that the ATAR is not a score; it’s a rank. It measures a student’s performance relative to their peers. An ATAR of 80.00 means a student is in the top 20% of their age group, not just among those who completed the HSC, but all students who started Year 7 with them.
Here’s where things get interesting: the ATAR doesn’t compare students against others who took the same subjects or even the HSC. Instead, it’s a broad ranking that places everyone in the same age group on a single spectrum, regardless of whether they completed the HSC. So, if you get an ATAR of 80, you’re better off than 80% of your age group, but this group includes everyone, not just HSC students. This can make the ATAR feel somewhat detached from the actual academic experience of Year 12 students.
So, why does NSW spend a staggering $100+ million on an exam that’s primarily a gateway to university? According to UAC, the ATAR is “the best available predictor of university success, as measured by students’ first-year grade-point average (GPA).” However, this claim is based on research conducted by UAC itself, which is like a company funding research to prove its product is the best—it’s inherently biased. That’s not to say it is wrong, but evidence suggests it is a weak predictor.
When we dig deeper into the Grattan Institute’s research, which UAC cites to justify the ATAR’s use, we find that the connection between ATAR and university success is not as strong as suggested. The research indicates that students with higher ATARs are more likely to complete their university degrees, but it doesn’t conclusively link ATAR with high GPA or other measures of success.
In fact, the Grattan Institute points out that market forces, rather than academic standards, largely determine the ATARs required for university admission. ATAR is used more as a tool to allocate scarce student places efficiently than as a reliable measure of student capability or potential. Moreover, studies have shown that the ATAR may under-predict some students’ academic performance, which raises further questions about its validity and fairness. Even if we accept that the ranking is predictive of performance, only 25% of students enter university based primarily on that rank.
Why is NSW spending $100 million on a test that only about 25% of students use as their primary entry mechanism for university? These end-of-school tests do not fully capture a student’s abilities or readiness for university. Universities are now considering a broader range of factors for admissions, such as previous educational experience, professional qualifications, work experience, alternative entry programs, and equity and access schemes. These new parameters aim to provide a fairer and more comprehensive assessment of applicants, ensuring diverse pathways to higher education. Given these changes, it seems questionable to continue spending such a large amount of taxpayer dollars on a test that doesn’t hold as much weight as it once did.
Given all this, we must ask: Is spending $100 million annually on the HSC justified? What if NSW redirected this substantial sum towards programs that genuinely enhance educational outcomes, particularly for those students most in need? The potential benefits of rethinking how we use these resources are enormous. With $500 million over five years, we could create transformative educational initiatives that better prepare students for the future, whether continuing to Year 12 or pursuing other valuable pathways.
While exams and rankings like the HSC and ATAR have their place, it’s worth questioning the extent to which they should dominate our education system and whether the financial investment they require truly aligns with their value.
You can see my original (more “cranky”) post from last year here.
Maximising Student Potential 