Guest Rome1 Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 Hey everyone, I am a bit confused with course selection and was wondering if anyone in this forum had this concern as well. I am considering taking a 1.25 Physiology course ( in one semester, a full time student is expected to take 2.5 credits) so I will be taking three other 0.5 courses to make it a full time course. But does med schools look at the weighting or the number of courses taken? Since it is a heavy course, I don't want to be screwed over in the application process if this course were considered a normal 0.5 course. I hope I did not confuse anybody. But i really could use your help...anyone who was in this situation...I am planning on contacting each of the schools that i am interested in. But love to hear your input! Rome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aneliz Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 Heya, You sound like you might be a Guelph student by the fact that you are doing course selection right now and are considering a 1.25 physiology course. Med schools take into account the weight of the course. A full time year has 5.0 full credit weights...(or the equivalent of 10 half credits). If you take a 1.25 credit weighted physiology course, it counts as equivalent to taking 2.5 'regular' (0.5 credit) courses. So, you only need to have the weight of your other courses for the year add up to 3.75. This can be easily accomplished with human anatomy (worth 1.50), biomed histology (0.75), mamm phys lab (0.25), etc. Some people at Guelph that take the human phys course had it, human anatomy and epi (0.5 credit) as an entire full time semester (because it equals 2.50 credits). This is fine. As an aside, I don't know if things have changed, when I was at Guelph and Dr Barclay was teaching human phys, it was a real GPA killer....and because it is weighted so high, it can really kill your year if you don't do well...(and he thought that a 75 was brilliant!)....I would suggest taking the two 0.5 weighted mamm phys courses instead...(BIOM*31??) and the lab course for mam phys...together they still add up to 1.25 in physiology, but they are three separate course codes, so if you do bad in the first half, you have a clean slate to redeem yourself in second semester. Mamm phys also covers the same material as human (it is essentially human phys with a couple of dog and horse examples thrown in occasionally) but at a more sane pace. The exams are easier and Dr Harris is a great teacher and a good reference letter writer if you get to know him. And, the final bonus, he knows the pharmacology course inside out and tailors his teaching of receptors to what you will be expected to know in the pharm course.... Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mfp Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 Rome, when you mentioned 1.25 credit physiology - I thought of UofGoo too. Its a really good course and I wouldn't worry about the GPA too much - as you as you consistently put work into it, you should come out with a decent mark. Aneliz - for better or worse, Barclay has now retired. But I hear one of his 'disciples' is now teaching it - so the course is essentially being taught in the same way. Initially, I did not think I would like the course because Barclay did teach it in a somewhat didactic and traditional way (I've heard through the grapevine that he was not what you would call a PBL fan.) But I was proven wrong and absolutely loved the course. So it turned out to be a GPA booster for me - I guess I'm kind of nostalgic about since my GPA is being seriously hemorraged by orgo right now... cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest byjude Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 From what I'd heard, Hum Phys was a GPA killer when Barclay taught it (uh.. 2000-2001?) while Mam Phys was much easier, but the year after it was the reverse. Not sure where things stand now, but I think it sounds like the grading has maybe been normalized - so it becomes better to select based on what suits your learning style rather than which may or may not give a better mark. Not sure if this has changed now, but the HK used to have essay-style tests while BIOM was short answer - more emphasis on knowing small details but better guidance in providing answers. It's up to you which suits you better. Of course.. it's still worth hearing other opinions about current teaching styles.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aneliz Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 Barclay was a good guy...but definitely not a 'PBL' fan... Harris is a great guy too... Neither of the courses is a cake-walk compared to the other...the major benefit to mamm over human from my perspective is the fact that it is split into three separate course codes...so if you get completely smoked on one of the exams it is more 'recoverable' in mamm than in human... And having it spread over the whole year rather than 12 weeks gives you longer to wrap your brain around concepts...which can be a real plus when you get to renal physiology! Either way, I would really suggest taking the 0.25 lab credit...it really helps solidify things and is pretty fun...(for a lab)...and I hear that they have all brand new toys since I took the course too.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tal Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Dr. Murrant now teaches Human Phys and the marks have gone way up (Compared to Barclay's). It's still very difficult and LOTS of work and stressful (especially the final exam for a 1.25 credit course!) However when its done those who did this course vs. Mam phys remeber the concepts better and for a longer period of time (they did a study apparently), which is really important since physiology comes into play with everything! Dr. Murrant is also a great prof. And, especially if you do well in the course, its so nice to be done your phys credit all in one semester and it was very nice to only have 3 courses to do in that semester. I actually know a few people who got a hundred in the course! Imagine getting 100 in a 1.25 credit course (so basically 2 and 1/2 courses) in one shot! I just thought I'd stick in my opinion, and a little more recent guelph physiology experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NurseEpi Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Ah...the horrible, painful memories of Dr.Barclay's physiology class. I was in the first class that had the condensed format (way back in 1994 if I'm not aging myself too much) and we only got 2.0 credits (out of 10.0 credits/year). To make it even worse, we had a 100% final exam! Talk about stress! And it may just have been paranoia at the time, but I remember Dr.Barclay had a very strong bias towards human biology/human kinetics students and absolutely loathed bio-medical science students (which I was). But I'm glad to hear Aneliz suggest that a 75 was considered brilliant because I only got a 74 and thought it was the end of the world! Boy have times changed...for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest byjude Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Yeah, though I'm glad no one has to go endure the torture of Barclay Human Phys, it still sucks to read about how there is actually the possibility of enjoying something that was one of the most annoying as a and regreattable experiences of my undergrad career - I wasn't even a biomed or HK student, I took the stupid course as an elective! Then again, I always hear about how all of the courses are getting easier over the years, and that just fuels my resentment - whether or not it's accurate. Is this actually true?? It seems like it might just be something that gets passed up the levels as a sort of "today's kids are weaker than us" snort as we hear how our rites of passage seem to be watered down. Or is it just that the rumours only get spread about the classes that get easier, since it's much more interesting to talk about how unfair it is that younger students get an easier chance than you, than it is to talk about the OTHER courses where things got harder? Help me round out my perception here since I know it can't be completely accurate. I've heard that Biochem I, Human Phys, Genetics and Intro MBG - all of the mandatory rites of passage - have all gotten easier over the past say 3-4 years. Is this actually true? Are there courses that reportedly get harder? Then again.. I've heard bad things about Intro Stats if you get the wrong professor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aneliz Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 I hear that Orgo I is substantially harder now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest byjude Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 That's good to know - I guess. Though I still feel bad. I think I'd rather have a harder enjoyable class than a harder class that I would hate regardless of level of difficulty. Though my aversion to orgo is my own personal feeling, so maybe some masochist out there would love to be challenged by orgo I. (As if they couldn't wait until the sequels!) How is it harder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mfp Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 To put it plainly - Prof. Auzanneau seems to be putting her research ahead of her teaching schedule. This week, for instance, she is totally unavailable for questions etc.. even though our final is less than a week away... sorry my rant:p The course marks have dropped substantially. Last summer, for instance, she gave everyone an extra 5% in the final so the scores wouldn't look so pitiful. Also beware that she will often pontificate and lambast the class if she believes we have not been studying - its a tone and manner that betrays her academic origins: she is french from France. If you've ever been in school there, you will know what I mean. cheers- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest byjude Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Ah yes, I've heard some remarks about Auzanneau - I think she's taught the course on and off for years though since she arrived, though when I took orgo they seemed to have tucked her safely away in Orgo III - which should more necessarily be a terror. I hate it when professors criticize students for not studying. In one sense, I suppose it scares you into working harder, but odds are if you've chosen to go to Guelph, you're not the sort of person who functions best under that sort of learning environment anyway (or you tend to do okay in the more friendly, you-can-do-it sort of learning environment that might fail less motivated students). Sorry to hear that your experience with orgo is not the greatest. (Then again, whose ever is?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mfp Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Hey Byjude- Are you still at UofG? If not, what are you up to? BTW, it turns out that Barclay is back on campus. Nothing like double-cohort to get some of these older profs back.... Prokipchuck (I'll never learn how to spell his name ) is back too. You might be interested in knowing that BioSci is looking at changing first year biology to a PBL-hybrid type course... something more collaborative etc... I've heard that it might happen as early as next fall. cheers- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest byjude Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Interesting tidbits! Are they looking to change the first year bio for all students, or just a select bunch? That course is such a weird melange of stuff that was redundant to OAC - not sure how redundant it will be with the new curriculum, but still that could be a good motivating factor to change the course. But PBL? I don't know. PBL seems to work a lot better for mature students who are able to manage their own studying - definitely NOT something you want to be imposing on hundreds of 17 and 18 year-old students in a first-year course that is mandatory for all science students - when they're all just learning how to manage the independence of university life, let alone PBL-style learning. This might work as an optional seminar thing, or as a small portion of learning materials (eg, in addition to the biweekly lab, have some sort of PBL seminars on alternate weeks), but it seems dangerous to impose something on such a large and young group. Not everyone is suited for PBL. The weird thing about Biology at Guelph (although it seems fitting) is that the course is required for ALL science students - whether they're biomed, computer science, math, whatever. So the course is already irritating enough for a significant portion of the class - so unless the PBL part is done well (which I doubt it would be, at least not in the first few years - given that Guelph doesn't have a lot of experience with major PBL components of courses, and especially not at the lower levels) this could be more trouble than it's worth. Then again, maybe I'm just too pessimistic. Barclay is back - of course he is. He's always been back since he retired. He took on new grad students the year after he retired, and I really don't think he ever plans on unofficially leaving the school until they have to roll him out. Which is great, even though many dislike his teaching style, I doubt many would disagree he's an intriguing guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mfp Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 ByJude- You do sound pessimistic - but then again it sounds like you've been in academia for awhile . Wisdom? Re: PBL in first year bio. There actually is a precedent for it. UQAM - the Universite de Quebec a Montreal (downtown Montreal ) has probably the most innovative PBL biology undergrad in the country. They started the program as early as 1997 and my understanding is that its been quite successful. Guelph could be successful with such an approach but then again - the first year in bio class is significantly larger than the UQAM's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest byjude Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 It would be interesting to try as an optional class section for interested students (eg biomed students, or students who self-select). Guelph has the innovative perspective and the appropriate attitude in *some* of its students (though that good-natured attitude seemed to decline in proportion throughout my years there in light of increasing reputation and people choosing the school based on its Maclean's ranking rather than its personality) to implement something like this - but not always the ability to carry out lofty goals, given its practical concerns (ie, not being the wealthiest school esp in light of not having the large wealthy alumni base relative to current population; plus having large classes). But yeah - I agree, it could be interesting to see - particularly if they implement it as an option to a select/small group of students rather than a requirement to everyone. And yeah - I am probably a little too pessimistic - it's not necessarily due to my academic duration so much as being maybe too impatient to really do things well the first time around, and having inherited my mother's unfortunate tendency for consistent regret. :rolleyes Anyway.. if you're looking for wisdom I always have ideas and random thoughts that I'm more than willing to spew forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.