Processes for student admission.
2. RMIT University is rated as an Assessment Level 1 provider under the SSVF. If an international applicant fails to meet the minimum entry requirement stipulated by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) to have a visa granted under Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 or is deemed high risk under both the
SSVF and the Migration Regulations, International Admissions may deny the application under SSVF obligations. All international students are required to meet the Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) requirement as provided for in Ministerial Direction 69.
3. Students undertaking exchange or study abroad at RMIT are enrolled as non-award students. Such enrolments are governed by RMIT policy and (where applicable) legal agreements between RMIT and students’ home institution.
4. These students are required to meet the following requirements for enrolment in courses.
4.1. They are normally required to have completed one year of full-time study at their home institution.
4.2. They may be required to meet published entry requirements for the program of study that is most relevant to their proposed enrolment – normally a grade point average of 2.5/4 or 60% or equivalent.
4.3. They must provide academic transcripts of their previous study so RMIT can verify that they have the skills and knowledge requisite for success in RMIT courses, and have chosen courses at the appropriate level of study.
4.4. They must meet the English language requirements for exchange or study abroad students.
5. The program guide is the authoritative source of approved university and program entry requirements, information regarding available masters exemptions and credit agreements. Any other information provided to applicants must be consistent with this.
6. Application and submission deadlines are published in program brochures, and on the University website, and if application is offered through VTAC, in the VTAC Guide and on the VTAC website.
7. Application deadlines may be changed with the approval of the relevant college admissions office(s). If these deadlines are changed, college admissions offices update published information in conjunction with relevant central admissions teams.
8. ARG Admissions set the VTAC Guide review and approval timelines and processes annually. ARG Admissions will consult college admissions offices and advise them annually of this process.
9. ARG Admissions set timelines and processes for direct applications. College admissions offices will be consulted and advised annually of this process.
10. University profile targets are approved annually by the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor may take into consideration advice from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education), Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation) and Vice-Chancellor’s Executive in setting these targets.
11. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) may approve sub-targets relating to aspects of the University’s academic, business and social inclusion strategies.
12. Approved profile targets are communicated to staff responsible for selection before an admissions intake starts. College admissions offices also notify ARG Admissions of profile targets before the intake starts in order that appropriate system configuration can take place.
13. Where profile is limited for a program staff may seek approval from their college director of profile and planning to pool and rank applications (see Ranking and selection for competitive programs, below). Where pooling and ranking are approved, staff responsible for selection are informed in writing before an intake starts.
14. Programs must have a documented, rigorous and properly approved selection methodology for assessment of applicants’ capacity for success in the program. This may include elements such as minimum academic requirements and selection tasks.
15. A selection decision involves checking that applicants meet the full set of published requirements.
15.1. Selection officers identify applicants who meet the University entry requirements, including minimum age, minimum academic requirement and English language requirements.
15.2. Of these applicants, selection officers identify applicants who meet the program entry requirements.
15.3. Applicants who meet all requirements may be offered a place in the program (unless competitive selection rules them out).
15.4. Staff of partner institutions may shortlist applicants. The shortlist must be sent to the relevant selection officer for the school or college to make the final selection decisions.
15.5. Partner institutions must supply schools or colleges with access to copies of all applications.
16. Program entry requirements and selection methodology must be applied consistently to all applicants for a program. Program entry requirements and selection methodology must not change during an intake.
17. The applicant’s entire application, including any equity or access provisions or other entrance schemes (e.g. Elite or Emerging Athletes), must be considered.
18. Details of how equity and access provisions are applied are set out clearly in the program selection methodology.
19. If an applicant raises issues relating to access and equity that are not resolved by referring to the selection methodology, staff with responsibility for selection may seek advice from college admissions offices or ARG Admissions.
20. The selection officer may give greater weight to the applicant’s most recent and/or relevant previous qualification, study or experience. Where an applicant’s secondary school results are 10 or more years old these should not be considered as part of the primary selection criteria.
21. To be considered for a place, applicants must submit their application by published deadlines, by the correct application process and with all required documents.
22. If the selection officer believes that the applicant has demonstrated they are capable of success in the program but they do not meet the entry requirements after consultation with their college admissions offices, they may apply for a waiver: see section 23 of the admission and credit policy.
22.1. Colleges submit requests for waivers of entry requirements for individual applicants to coursework programs to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) via a Google sheet to which college admissions managers and deputy pro vice-chancellors, learning and teaching have access.
23. As far as possible, applications are not pooled (held for competitive selection at a later time) and this can only occur if the program has approval to conduct a competitive selection process: see section 6.5 of the admission and credit policy.
24. If a program wishes to pool applicants for competitive selection, the impact on selection of international applicants must be considered including delays to visa processing and shorter periods for ELICOS enrolments. Pooling international applicants for competitive selection may reduce the size of the pool, since many will accept earlier offers from
25. If programs select competitively, applicants who are eligible for admission are ranked in order according to the program ranking methodology and offers are made in order from highest to lowest rank until all places are filled.
26. Final ranking scores must take into consideration all aspects of an application including equity and access provisions, selection tasks and academic results. The approved selection methodology for the program must specify the ranking methodology, and this must be used.
27. Feedback on an applicant’s performance in ranking for competitive selection must be provided on request and should provide the applicant with sufficient detail to improve their chances of selection in the future.
28. The university reserves the right to request additional information from an applicant relevant to their application. Failure to supply requested information may result in denial of admission.
29. The university reserves the right to request that an applicant authorise the University to obtain further information about the applicant from relevant external bodies, such as VTAC or another tertiary institution. Failure to supply such authority may result in denial of admission.
30. Applicants who are applying to study in Australia on a student visa must provide certified copies of their documents.
31. The university reserves the right to request certified copies or original versions of documents from international applicants applying to study online or at partner locations, and from domestics applicant applying to study online or in Australia where their previous qualifications cannot be verified from other sources.
32. The university will accept either hard copies or electronic copies of documents.
33. Applicants are selected fairly according to formally approved admission standards and in accordance with the approved selection methodology for the program.
34. Staff involved in selection decisions must comply with the conflict of interest policy.
35. If staff suspect there has been or will be a breach of the conflict of interest policy during the admission process, they must immediately notify the relevant dean/head of school or director. If the dean/head of school or director is unavailable, or are themselves suspected, the staff member must notify the relevant college pro vice-chancellor or the
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education).
36. Selection tasks assess an applicant’s capacity to succeed in the program.
37. The purpose of a selection task and its use as part of the program selection process must be documented in the program selection methodology.
38. Selection tasks and program selection methodologies reflect the university’s commitment to equity and inclusion.
39. Selection tasks only seek information required for assessment. They do not include irrelevant tasks that may unfairly disadvantage some applicants.
40. Applicants are given clear instructions on what is expected of them as part of the selection task and how the selection task will be used as part of program selection methodology. Submission dates and timelines for selection tasks are published on relevant webpages and publications.
41. Selection tasks and the selection task assessment methodology are documented, approved by (for coursework programs) the relevant College Deputy Pro Vice- Chancellor, Learning and Teaching or (for research programs) the relevant College Deputy Pro Vice-Chancellor, Research and Innovation, and the approval documentation is retained in the relevant school/selection area.
42. Details of selection tasks are published in program guides and summaries and (where applicable) the VTAC Guide.
43. Assessment of an applicant’s performance in a selection task is recorded.
44. Feedback on an applicant’s performance in a selection task is provided on request and furnishes the applicant with sufficient detail to improve their performance in the task in future.
46. Equity admissions schemes support student diversity by increasing access to coursework programs and participation of students from under-represented groups and equity groups who have experienced educational disadvantage.
47. Where applicable to a student’s application, equity admission schemes must be taken into consideration as part of selection.
48. Local applicants applying to RMIT vocational education and undergraduate programs may apply under one or more equity admission scheme categories.
49. RMIT’s equity admission schemes for local applicants are aligned across application processes. Consideration is applied through the following approaches/mechanisms:
49.1. Capability and capacity determination, within a non-competitive and pathways commitment
The Indigenous Access Program is an early offer model that allows applicants to be selected for programs independent of their final results. Capacity and capability for success are determined by selection staff through an interview process managed by the Ngarara Willim Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
49.2. Allocation of bonus points against an RMIT approved list of equity groups
The university awards bonus points to eligible students from underrepresented and equity groups that reflect the University’s equity priorities through the VTAC Special Entry Access Scheme (SEAS) and the RMIT Access scheme.
Bonus points awarded are applied by selection officers to an applicant’s selection rank where they meet eligibility criteria. Programs that select using a selection task such as folio or interview apply the equity bonus to each selection task and rerank according to the program methodology.
49.3. Allocation of regional bonus points
Regional bonus points are applied to applicants who reside in areas classified as low socioeconomic status (low SES) by the university. This scheme allows selection officers to use the automatic re-ranking function in the VTAC system. The low SES bonus is not confined to applicants who have made an individual SEAS application for the consideration of disadvantage but applies to anyone from the designated areas in the entire applicant pool for a program.
49.4. Allocation of significant re-rank to applicants from a School Network Access Program (SNAP)
SNAP consideration is available through the VTAC SEAS application process and is aimed at improving access to higher education for students from select Victorian secondary schools with whom the u-niversity has a SNAP partnership.
For programs that use ATAR for selection SNAP consideration is provided via reranking within the VTAC system.
In programs that select using a –selection task such as folio or interview reranking is applied by selection officers to the applicant’s selection task result. This is only done for applicants who have demonstrated capacity for success in this assessment.
50. Selection methodology must include the process for equity admission scheme consideration (see Selection above).
51. VTAC bonus points (SEAS and low SES bonusing) are applied to the aggregate score of applicants for vocational education and undergraduate programs who have an ATAR.
52. If an applicant is not successful in their application for a program, they may be offered a place for which they are eligible, in either the same program at another location, an alternative program or a pathway program.
53. Offers of admission specify the following details of the offered enrolment: program, attendance mode, the teaching period in which the enrolment will start, whether full time or part time, campus and details of the financial cost.
54. Where an applicant has previous study in the same or a closely related RMIT program the impact of any past credit is considered by the school/college before an offer is made. See Internal credit older than 10 years, below, for details.
55. Offers of admission to coursework programs are made using the standard university approved templates and process.
56. All offers of admission are made in writing.
57. If an applicant will be under 16 years of age at the start of their RMIT study, the dean/head of school or director must approve any offer. Selection officers are responsible for ensuring approvals are in place and added to the applicant’s record before the offer is made.
58. Australian domestic applicants who are under 18 years of age must provide evidence of their release from school. RMIT may withdraw the offer to study if this evidence is not received. VCE Extend students, however, are excluded from this requirement as they undertake VCE Extend studies as part of their schoolwork.
59. International students wishing to study in Australia who are under 18 years of age are subject to particular welfare requirements. These must be taken into consideration when assessing applications and making offers.
60. RMIT schools/colleges are responsible for the welfare of underage students to whom they make offers. Deans/heads of school or directors ensure that provisions for student safety are in place and maintained.
61. Deans/heads of school or directors ensure that staff are aware of their reporting requirements relating to children and young people and that the principles and processes set out in RMIT’s commitment to child safety are enacted within their school.
62. Where a selection officer learns that an offer has been made in error, the following process is followed.
62.1. The selection officer as soon as possible informs the college admissions office (and in the case of a research applicant, the admissions team in the School of Graduate Research) that an offer has been made in error.
62.2. The college admissions office (for coursework applicants) or School of Graduate Research (for research applicants) as soon as possible advises the manager of domestic or international admissions (as relevant) and the Academic Registrar of the circumstances, and asks whether the offer can be withdrawn.
62.3. The Academic Registrar confirms if the offer can be withdrawn.
62.4. The Academic Registrar may decline to approve withdrawal of the offer if the applicant has enrolled and/or commenced classes or if they are not persuaded that there are grounds to withdraw the offer.
62.5. The selection officer then notifies the applicant in writing of the withdrawal of the offer and the reason.
63. This process must be completed within five days of the error in selection being identified.
64. Decisions to cancel a program intake should be made before any offers are made to applicants. If this is not possible the university may cancel the program intake after offers have been made and cancel those offers of admission.
64.1. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) makes the decision to cancel a program intake once offers have been made and to cancel those offers, together with (for research programs) the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation). They consider the following factors in the decision:
a) the reason for the program intake cancellation;
b) the reason the program intake was not cancelled before offers were made;
c) the number of applicants who have received offers; and
d) alternative programs in which applicants can be offered a place.
64.2. Communication to applicants that their offers have been revoked due to a cancelled program intake must include the reason for the cancellation and advise them of any suitable alternative program or future intake to the same program.
65. If offers have been made to international students intending to study in Australia on a student visa the decision to cancel must be made after consultation with International Compliance to ensure ESOS compliance.
66. Applicants who have previously studied at RMIT may be given preference over applicants who have not previously been RMIT students, provided they meet all entry requirements. The applicant’s academic performance in their previous RMIT program is a factor in the selection decision.
67. The applicant must meet university and program entry requirements and the selection officer must be satisfied that the applicant has a reasonable likelihood of success in the program.
68. Applicants who have previously been excluded from an RMIT program are eligible to apply for readmission to their past or a replacement program in the admission period before their period of exclusion will end. Their previous results in the program should be a factor in the selection decision: do they have a reasonable likelihood of success in the program? If their previous results were consistently poor, can they provide any evidence that they will do better this time? Selection officers should consider whether the applicant meets any criteria for readmission explicitly stated to the applicant as part of their exclusion notification.
Questions on readmission after exclusion should be directed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
69. International applicants who have previously been cancelled for non-payment of fees are assessed against Simplified Student Visa Framework requirements and may be refused admission on the basis of their potential risk to the university.
70. Higher degree by research applicants seeking readmission for the purpose of examination of their thesis/project should refer to section 5 of the thesis/project submission and examination process.
71. If an unsuccessful applicant wants feedback on the reasons admission was denied, they must seek this within 10 working days of the day on which formal notification of the selection decision was sent to them.
72. International applicants who have been denied under the Simplified Student Visa Framework (SSVF) cannot seek a review of this decision. Applicants may make a new application if they meet SSVF requirements.
73. The selection officer provides the applicant with the reasons for the decision within five working days of being contacted by the applicant. They provide information relevant to the applicant’s application and any selection task that will help the applicant improve their application if they apply for a future intake.
74. Where an applicant has sought feedback on their application as above but remains dissatisfied with the outcome, they may seek a formal review of a selection decision where they have evidence that all of the following grounds exist:
- the applicant satisfied all relevant entry requirements,
- the application was lodged on time, in the correct manner, and they provided all of the relevant, valid documentation to the university,
- the applicant has evidence that the admission policy was improperly applied, and
- the applicant has sought feedback from the selection officer.
75. A review application must be submitted within 20 working days from the date the selection decision was sent.
76. On receiving a request for review, the relevant deputy pro vice-chancellor, learning and teaching (for coursework applicants) or the Associate Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Research Training and Development (for research applicants) will:
- arrange an investigation with two working days
- advise the applicant in writing of the outcome of the review within a further 20 working days.
77. This decision is final and cannot be appealed within the university.
78. An application for review may be dismissed as without substance where the applicant:
- did not meet the published admission requirements of the program to which admission was sought, or
- fails to produce evidence substantiating the grounds of review.
79. The applicant must be notified of these reasons as part of the dismissal of review.
80. Where a review against a selection decision is upheld the reviewer sends notice of the outcome to the applicant within 10 working days. The notice contains the full decision of the review and states any actions being taken by the university in relation to it.
|Version||Approval date||Effective date||Summary of changes|
|1.0||14 July 2017||1 January 2018||New policy document|
|1.1||18 October 2018||22 October 2018||Minor amendment|