THE MCMASTER BACHELOR OF HEALTH SCIENCES PROGRAM

[Guest studentz]

Some of you are making a good point about a possible change in the atmosphere there. When I said I would take it, I'm in a way remembering that time in high school...I turned down everywhere but UofT and Mac, then sat on the two until the last weekend. I visited Mac, confirmed that I'd go because the program was interesting, small and I felt comfortable there, then I got 2 scholarships from Toronto on the Mon. and Tues. and went to UofT. That was a dumb thing. Now, UofT gave me a great education, but I think I would have enjoyed the overall experience at Mac better. I also didn't have an older brother/friend, or knowledge of this board, which could have acted as a source of info on undergrad life at Toronto, i.e. huge classes and thousands of med hopefuls in year 1. I suggest that high school kids look around on this board for info from those who have gone down the road before and if you have the means, reject money at a 2nd choice if you're really comfortable at a first choice. As a digression, I should say that the ranking system on OUAC is bull. The only reason I put Toronto #1 was because Vic wouldn't consider anyone for scholarships if that wasn't the case, but by doing so I probably limited my chances at a big award at Mac, which had no firm policy like that. They should scrap that ranking system if they haven't done so yet.

 

That was the first health sci class, obviously before word got out that a ridiculous number of that first class got into med after 3 years, and basically the rest of the class after 4. Nobody really knew what to expect then. It's probably true that people go there thinking it's their ticket to med school, and with good reason. People hate on the program, but it's really difficult to argue with those stats. I don't think it's purely a case of a large number of high achievers either, but a difference in learning environment. For example, I know several people who mentioned they were encouraged to follow their med school goal and were given opportunities to explore the career in various ways. Everyone at UofT knows that the explicit goal of the science specialist programs is to produce grad students.

 

About the competitiveness, in that first year I think there were 1700 applications for 80 spots and I don't know anyone with less than 90% that got in that year. They then took 20 transfers after first year to increase the class size to 100 (I think). I heard the class size has gone up but I don't know. It's very competitive for a science program but the possibility that it's less competitive than EngSci isn't surprising as elite eng programs at any school are hard to get into.

 

Oh yeah, MikeD, from what I understand, a good portion of their courses are not exclusive to health sci students, e.g. they may take a biochem courses with other biochem people. I don't knock the stats because realistically, no science program at any Canadian university is as difficult to get into and it's likely that they would do well anywhere (this doesn't mean that high achievers elsewhere wouldn't do well in Mac's program, but that's not the point).

 

Would you tolerate curving at a 65% average in med school? Then why should it be done in health sci (I don't know if it is), when the students there faced harder competition to get into that program than students at most Cdn. med schools? To curve the grades in a highly selected group of people would be to punish those who did very well in high school and remove any incentive to attend the program among those considering future studies which require high grades to get into. Especially when OMSAS doesn't consider the selectiveness or difficulty of the undergrad program. That's why I don't jump on the bash Harvard bandwagon. It's damn near impossible to get in there and if you spread those students out over 200 other schools, probably everyone of them would be near the top of their classes. The vast majority of them deserve their As.

 

Curving in a less highly-selected group, say all 2000 people in BIO150Y, may be more justified since one could conceivably argue the need to recognize the high achievers. But when everyone already is a high achiever, you're just trying to separate the super high achievers from high achievers, which I would argue cannot adequately be done simply by %age grades on a test since the admission process already removed the top ___% from any semblance of a normal curve. That type of differentiation comes from reference letters, unique contributions to academic or other activities, research etc.

[Guest coastalslacker]

SamMD, I'm assuming you must be a Mac HS student. Since I don't want to be passing along potentially false info, I will edit out my previous posts. However, friends who are Mac HS grads were my sources, so I'm still, congenailly, somewhat skeptical of your claims.

 

Cheers

[Guest MikeD]

Studentz,

 

Thanks for the clarification on students not taking all of their courses together...that does make a big difference in my argument.

 

As engineering isn't a breeding ground for medicine, maybe I come from a different mentality, but to me there is a difference between challenging vs. curve fitting (not sure exactly what you're referring to). My problem is that in the courses everyone takes together, if most do well early on, why not challenge them with a difficult final? I'm not aware of any algorithmic curving that went on in my Waterloo engineering program, but I am positive that if most of the class did well on the midterm, you could expect a gruesome final to do the natural curving...and there always was deviation if the final was tough. To me that was fair...if most found something too easy, profs really tried to push our understanding. In eng, it's pretty simple for a prof to up the difficulty of the content covered, but maybe that's not the case in some other subjects. Maybe the Mac HS people are really challenged, and if that's the case, then I have no argument.

 

It's just so hard to be consistent across schools and programs. Many other programs have just as high or higher admission averages, but the high achievers are seperated from the super-high achievers as you termed it. It hasn't done anything for our admissions averages, they keep jumping higher and higher each year. While we don't have so many people gunning for medicine, we are (or at least when I was there) ranked in each subject and overall, and that gives most people a kick in the pants as going from #1 in your high school to #80 in your class is tough.

[Guest SamMD]

MikeD,

 

Most BHSc. student perform BETTER (or equally good) in their electives/'science'-courses than in their core health sci classes. In fact, one professor once put up the statistics for health sci students taking an Organic Chem class vs. non-health sci students (this was quite the @#%$ move by the prof btw and received many complaints from health sci students). The BHSc. average was roughly 15% higher after doing the exact same material with the exact same marking scheme.

[Guest medeng]

but I am positive that if most of the class did well on the midterm, you could expect a gruesome final to do the natural curving.

 

I did Queen's Eng Phys, and I can definitely attest to this happening (as well as occasionally the opposite fortunately!) I don't know if I would have enjoyed the program as much if the profs weren't always pushing you a bit further...

[Guest cheech10]

All this arguing over a topic that's been discussed many times before. I can't resist, so here is my take:

1. Is Mac Health Sci a good program? Yes. I know many people who went there and had a great undergrad experience.

2. Are their undergrad marks higher on average than the general undergrad population? Yes.

3. Is there success in applying to medical school higher than the general undergrad population? Based on the stats presented here, yes, undoubtedly.

4. Why do they get higher marks and get into med school? Because they are a HIGHLY selected bunch, high school marks are very high in this group, and they go on to get high GPAs in undergrad, which play a huge role in medical school admissions. This has little to do with the program; these students would likely have been successful at ANY undergrad program and gotten into med school anyway.

 

In essence, Mac created a program with a similar curriculum to medical school, which generated a lot of interest in premed keeners, then set the entry criteria very high, making it a somewhat "prestigious" program. They've done a great job of "skimming off" a lot of students that would have gone on to strong GPAs and med school anyway and gotten them to come to their program. This is an excellent move which generated a lot of buzz and a great reputation for the program and will ultimately result in more revenue from alumni down the road.

 

5. Will going to health sci make someone a better applicant? I have to answer an emphatic no. The success of health sci grads has little to do with the program, and everything to do with the students themselves as I described above. Getting accepted to health sci is a sign that you will probably be succesful in undergrad and getting into med school REGARDLESS of where you go to undergrad. So, find an environment you like, find a program with courses you like, and go to that university with no regrets.

[Guest mm201]

I still do not see how students in any given program hava a higher GPA than average, unless their program gives higher averges, or they take most of their classes with other less seletive programs? Is this the case?

 

Being in a very highly selective program does not make it easier do get a higher GPA. If anything it makes it harder. I attended a very competive Engineering program at Waterloo and my GPA was 3.58. Now I came back to school as a full time science student and my GPA is 4.0. I am putting in a comparable effort as I did in Engineering.

 

When students from my program took electives they did better than average, however we had only 6 electives in 4 years. That's less than one course per term that you are not taking with your hyper-competive classmates and has no signifacant bearing on your GPA.

[Guest cheech10]

That's because the marks in your exclusive courses were still fitted (either with artificial algorithms or by difficult exams) to a normal distribution. The Mac BHSc courses are not. Courses are allowed to have high averages because the students are thought to be stronger than the average undergrad science student.

[Guest caliente]

Hmmm...interesting discussion. I've actually never heard of this special program at Mac before. However, I don't regret not knowing about it during high school because I would not have applied anyways -- wasn't thinking of medicine and would have hated the idea of being with "keeners" for the majority of my classes.

 

Is this why some schools require the MCAT? Although the test is by no means perfect, it is at least standardized (a score of 30 is always "better" than a score of 25...though what "better" actual entails is a WHOLE different debate). When it comes to gpa, the courses people have taken are so different that it is near impossible to compare - is a 90 in this program really worth only an 85 in another program?

 

Just wondering what people think of the MCAT in light of this issue!

[Guest mm201]

This answers my question. I think that’s pretty unfair though because it assumes that this program is the only one with a high proportion of very smart and motivated people or that all other highly selective programs allow high averages because their students would have done better somewhere else. Both are untrue. It is good thing for the students at the Mac BHSc as they get the benefits of being surrounded with smart classmates without the disadvantage of half of the class needing to be below 70-75%.

[Guest kaymcee]

Just a reminder that the first entry of this thread was:

 

I GOT ACCEPTED!

 

But should I go?

 

I heard everyone there is guaranteed medical school acceptance

I think triumph was looking for people's feedback on the "But should I go?" question, rather than squabbles about normalizing GPA distributions, the quality of students in the BHSc program, and their acceptance rate into medical schools. So far, I've only heard a scant few opinions that address what was asked.

[Guest mm201]

This discussion would have been very relevant for me if I was choosing a program. A statement was made that a higher proportion of students from Mac BHSc get into medical school than from most other programs.

 

Why? Is it really true?

 

There was no official statistics supplied to support this claim.

It did not make sense to me based on what I know about how students are evaluated at universities. I believe that everyone posts here in good faith, but a little critical thinking does not hurt.

[Guest 4shattered4]

I completely agree with mm201. If Health Sci @ Mac really doesn't have a normal distribution, it really is not fair for all the other applicants. First of all, high school marks are not directly translated into university ones. Besides, the cut-off is only 90 or so or maybe even lower-- how is that solid evidence that these people with HIGH SCHOOL averages of 90+ are the brightest of the bunch?

 

I know in other universities, there are tons of people who are equally or not more capable and sometimes have to suffer under the normal distribution with really stupid marking systems that are meant to screw people over when the marks are too high. Who is to say that these 100 or 200 people's (I don't know how many people are in this program) marks are well-deserved when other people who are just as capable don't deserve them and have to suffer the normal distribution? I know in engineering programs, as people mentioned, tons of people are getting 60s when they came in a program that has a 90+ cutoff. How well people do in university shouldn't be directly correlated to their high school marks. But anyway, tons of grey areas.

[Guest coastalslacker]

I agree that high school marks are no indication of someone's ability to suceed in university. If you're working your tail off in high school, or working at all even, you'd better have an average over 90 or you aren't as bright as you think you are. Lots of people who have to work hard in high school to do well, absolutely flop in university.

[Guest climberchick]

...and lots of people who don't need to study to do well in high school, absolutely flop in university because they haven't developed any study skills... and it takes them a few years to "get in the grove."

 

Personally, I think Canada should implement high-school entry medical programs. Have a split system, like Australia. I guess McMasters Health Sciences Program is the closest we have to that... even though it doesn't garuntee acceptance.

 

Imagine if we could begin medschool right out of high school... of course I shouldn't be dreaming of that, since the last thing I need right now is a decrease in medical seats for Bach. degree students. :rollin

[Guest noncestvrai]

What is important to know is whether say a 3.7 GPA from that program has more chances than another one from a different program with the same GPA.

 

noncestvrai

[Guest studentz]

according to omsas, no it doesn't, a 3.7 OMSAS gpa is a 3.7 OMSAS gpa regardless of the school you come from. Now, UofT says they consider the difficulty of courses, but who knows what that means.

[Guest studentz]

I should summarize my lengthy post by saying that if you truly feel that's the program for you, and you visit the campus and are comfortable, go there. Look at the courses later on, compare it to other programs you get into, and go where you feel you will be happy and successful. Having said that, I certainly don't think it would hurt your med school chances one bit; I doubt Mac would post fraudulent stats on their website.

[Guest DelHarnish]

My Name is Del Harnish. I am a Professor and the Assistant Dean for the BHSc programme at McMaster University . I am writing to help clarify, if I may.

 

I thought about the ethics of replying to posts on this board and think I can do so if I remain as neutral as possible. Of course I have bias. I have worked with students for too many years to not have strong opinions on educational issues. I try to ground these in the scholarly literature (evidence, not hearsay) as much as possible.

 

Many of these posts are impressive in the context of making decisions about undergraduate programmes that will allow students to develop in the context of an explicit extrinsic goal; medicine.

 

I have worked with students for 15 years in the Faculties of Science and Health Science.

 

Factual Information;

1.        The BHSc programme at McMaster is NOT a premed programme although it is true that at the present time ( 2 yrs of graduate data), 70% of students go onto medical school. The role of the programme is to provide invitations and opportunities for students to explore Health Sciences as broadly or narrowly as they wish. Most students enter with medicine as a goal. It is our role to help them understand that the world is much richer than that. The 30% of students who have not gone on to an undergraduate medical programme have been accepted in a wide range of programmes; midwifery, law, graduate programmes leading to M.Sc. or Ph.D. degrees, MBA, Psychology.

2.        We encourage wide exploration. Fifty percent of the programme provides elective room for students to take anything they like. Formally there is room to complete the requirements of two minors. This is important for many students who have an interest in Music, English, math, psychology etc. Breadth of experience is as important as depth.

3.        The data on applications (101, Ontario) is accurate. There are an additional 310 applicants from out of province (105s) and a 15-20 from overseas. The programme has room for one hundred and sixty students. The limitation is a reflection of our need to keep inquiry course groups to 20 students with one faculty member and 3-4 peer tutors.

4.        Personally, I wish we could accept more than 160. The supplementary application allows us to examine more than high school GPA for admission. There may be differences between high schools but there is no data available to any Ontario University that would allow distinctions between high schools, for admission purposes.

5.        A CD rom was distributed to applicants this year. It was constructed by a company not connected with the university. The agreement stipulated that we would not interfere in content and the company surveyed year1-4 students on all issues. Therefore, the CD represents an objective view of the program.

6.        We spend a great deal of time working with students as individuals (e.g. Inquiry courses). In measures of ‘learning’ environmental effects are two-three times more important than curriculum content with respect to achieving better learning.

 

With Respect to Medical School Admissions.

1. Across the Ontario University system there is a correlation between high school averages and University GPA for years 2-4. The correlation is weaker for year 1 of university and this is probably a reflection of challenges related to adaptation etc.

 

2. Medical School admissions processes differ for all medical schools. For many schools GPA and MCATs combined with an essay or some other supplementary material are used. This produces a list of people who receive interviews. Interviews depend on a skill set other than memorization, including communication and problem-solving skills. BHSc students at McMaster are highly successful because they have knowledge and because they have spent 3 or 4 years developing the other skills in explicit ways as part of the curriculum. Students who do not develop these skills do not do as well in interviews. MCAATs are probably the best way to measure knowledge ( not skills) although there is a correlation between the verbal reasoning component of MCATs and clinical skills as a health practitioner ( McMaster will require this portion of the MCAT in 2006).

 

The sum of who we are as humans is more than can be measured with a GPA.

 

In deciding which university to attend a big component has to relate to your potential to enjoy the environment. So, use your heart as well as your head. I have often said that 50% of the value of an undergraduate degree is the things you learn that are not formally part of most curricula. Things like friends, groups, clubs, and personal triumphs. These are the things you will remember later, well after detailed knowledge is lost or modified.

 

Good luck next year, wherever you may go.

 

Del

[Guest kaymcee]

A truly excellent post. Thank you very much, Dr. Harnish, for your information and honesty.