Australia’s university admissions test is “outdated” and “largely irrelevant”, but experts say the system is unlikely to change while it remains the cheapest and most convenient system to rank students.

The chief scientist Alan Finkel this week called for a complete overhaul of the Advanced Tertiary Admission Rank system, or Atar, saying it encouraged students to game the system by aiming for higher scores by doing less demanding subjects.

“Rightly or wrongly, they absorb the message that the way to boost their Atar is to drop down a level in mathematics,” he said in a report a report on Australia’s Stem results.

He complained that not enough universities required mathematics subjects for degrees – saying that it is only a prerequisite for five of 37 universities offering a bachelor of science, four of 31 for a bachelor of commerce and one of 34 for an engineering degree.

“If students do not see the value in the knowledge and skills they will gain through these challenging subjects, or see a benefit or need in relation to their post-school plans, there is little incentive for students to engage with them,” the report stated.

But experts said that while there were problems with Atar, universities were unlikely to move away from what is a cost-effective admissions system unless they were forced to.

“It’s absolutely an out-dated system and it needs to be replaced, I totally agree with Finkel on that,” Tim Pitman, a senior research fellow at Curtin University’s school of education said.

Pitman said that using Atar as a ranking system in a sector where supply has – until recently – been uncapped was illogical.

“It needs to be replaced with a portfolio approach where Atar is just one of a series of factors that universities consider.

“But if that’s going to happen universities need to be appropriately funded and when the government is talking about efficiency dividends and performance-based funding it’s just not going to happen.

“It’s not at all the best way of selecting students, but it’s the most cost effective way and it allow universities to defend their admissions decisions.”

Jan Owen, the chief executive of the Foundation for Young Australians, said the idea of a “content measuring” score was outdated. The FYA’s research has found that Australia’s education system is failing to prepare young people for shifts in the economy caused by things such as automation and globalisation and flexibility.

Owen said Australia needed to move away from a “content-based curriculum to a capability-based curriculum.”

“My view is that we need to start talking about why we even have an Atar,” she said.

“Our research shows that we need to rebuild the curriculum anyway to start including the skills that 21st century jobs require such as critical thinking, collaboration and problem solving.

“Those things are not what Atar, or anything, is measuring. What this entire conversation is speaking to is, what are we going to need in the future of work and how do you measure those things?”

But Andrew Norton, a tertiary education expert from the Grattan Institute, said admissions prerequisites were an issue for universities.

“I don’t really think that Atar is the problem here,” he said.

“The fundamental issue is that maths is not a prerequisite for a large range of courses for which it might be a relevant or useful skill, so I guess the more pertinent question is just why is it not a prerequisite?

“Atar is used for quite particular reasons: it’s a number that is already produced, it’s free for universities and it’s broadly accepted as a fair and efficient way of allocating a scarce resource.

“I think that it’s unlikely universities would give up something that is cheap and efficient.”