Y10W13PA - Should the ATAR Be Abolished as the Main Pathway?

This week you wrote a persuasive submission to a national education review arguing about the ATAR. Now you'll read another student's submission and judge how strong it is. Working through how assessors evaluate formal persuasive writing sharpens your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.

Part 1

The Assessor Scorecard for

Persuasive – Submission

A strong persuasive submission takes a clear position, supports it with specific reasoning and evidence, addresses the strongest counterargument and closes with a specific recommendation. Assessors evaluate whether the argument genuinely convinces its professional audience.

Ideas & Content

Specific reasoning — not just asserting a position but identifying the mechanism behind the problem. The evidence that supports the claim, named clearly. The precise way the strongest objection fails to undermine the case.

  • Specific reasoning: shows mechanism, evidence and objection handling instead of assertion alone.

Structure & Cohesion

A deliberate move from position statement to positive case to counterargument to recommendation. Structural weakness shows when sections lack transitions. A vague recommendation also signals structural weakness.

  • Submission pathway: moves from position to case, counterargument and recommendation with purpose.

Audience & Purpose

Calibrated for its specific professional audience. Weakness appears when the framing does not match what the audience can evaluate. Weakness also appears when the recommendation is not actionable.

  • Framing in terms: the professional audience is equipped to evaluate is the primary mark of audience strength.

Language Choices

Formal submissions require precise analytical language. Key claims must be expressed exactly. The recommendation must be stated in specific, actionable terms. Vague or informal language reduces formal credibility.

  • Actionable precision: states claims and recommendations in exact, formal terms.

Conventions

Accurate spelling, grammar and punctuation are expected in formal submissions. Errors reduce professional credibility. Sentence variety and controlled complexity show command of formal expression.

  • Formal control: uses accurate mechanics and controlled sentence complexity to sustain credibility.

Part 2

Today’s Marking Targets

Task in one sentence

Write a submission to the national education review arguing for or against abolishing the ATAR as the primary university pathway — taking a clear position, supporting it with reasoning and addressing a counterargument.

Let’s Focus

Three strands matter most this week: Ideas & Content, Structure & Cohesion and Language Choices. The quality of ideas decides whether the argument is genuinely analytical or merely assertive. How the submission is structured — moving from case to counterargument to recommendation — decides whether the reader can follow the reasoning. The precision of language decides how clearly each analytical claim is expressed.

Ideas & Content

Strong writing this week shows Ideas & Content applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for depth that serves this task: genuine analytical reasoning with mechanism and evidence, not bare assertion.

What markers scan for

  • Ideas & Content applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The demands of this submission visibly shaping the depth of reasoning.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Ideas & Content is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.

  • Strong

    Ideas & Content is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.

  • Excellent

    Ideas & Content is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.

Structure & Cohesion

Strong writing this week shows Structure & Cohesion applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for organisation that serves this task: a clear move from case to counterargument to recommendation with explicit transitions.

What markers scan for

  • Structure & Cohesion applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The submission format visibly shaping the order and transitions.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Structure & Cohesion is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.

  • Strong

    Structure & Cohesion is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.

  • Excellent

    Structure & Cohesion is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.

Language Choices

Strong writing this week shows Language Choices applied consistently — not just in isolated moments. Assessors look for choices that serve this task: precise analytical language that expresses each claim exactly.

What markers scan for

  • Language Choices applied consistently throughout — not only in isolated moments.
  • The formal analytical demands of this task visibly shaping word choices.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Language Choices is present but applied inconsistently or only at a surface level.

  • Strong

    Language Choices is applied consistently, with genuine understanding of what this task requires.

  • Excellent

    Language Choices is applied with sustained precision throughout, shaped by the specific demands of this task.

Now read · Student sample

Should the ATAR Be Abolished as the Main Pathway?

Year 10 sample · \~300 words

Student sample for assessment

Written by a Year 10 student in Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.

This submission argues that the ATAR should be reformed rather than abolished as the primary university entry pathway, on the grounds that abolition without a credible replacement would create greater inequity, not less. The case for abolishing the ATAR rests on well-documented concerns: it rewards a narrow range of academic skills, creates extreme pressure in senior years, disadvantages students from schools with fewer resources and bears little relationship to success in many fields of tertiary study. These concerns are legitimate and the review should take them seriously. However, abolishing the ATAR does not resolve these concerns — it merely relocates them. If universities select students through interviews, portfolios, school-based recommendations or personal statements, the advantages will accrue to students whose schools, families and private tutors can coach them in those formats. The evidence from jurisdictions that have reduced ATAR dependence suggests that alternative selection processes are not neutral: they tend to favour students who already have the most social and cultural capital. The stronger position is to retain the ATAR while reforming the system around it. Reforms should include: expanding the subjects that attract ATAR scores, reducing scaling practices that advantage private school cohorts, investing in teacher capacity at under-resourced schools and requiring universities to report transparently on the outcomes of students admitted through different pathways. These changes address the legitimate objections to the ATAR while preserving the one feature it has that genuinely resists gaming: it produces a comparable, externally moderated score that is harder to manipulate than holistic selection processes. The review should also consider that the strongest advocates for ATAR abolition are often found in universities that already have the brand equity to attract high-demand applicants regardless of how they are selected. For students from schools with limited reputational networks, a transparent numerical score may be the most equitable tool available. The panel is asked to weigh the rhetoric of reform against the evidence of what has happened in comparable education systems.