does it matter where you get ur undergrad degree?

[Kuantum]

I say transfer. We don't realize this in high school cause we are all encouraged to go to the best university for our program. But if you are planning to go to medical school that may not be the best thing to do. Although some may claim that all universities are hard, which is true, the quality of students that go there will determine your overall mark. UofT's Life Science program generally requires an 85 or above in your final year of high school to get in (my friend with an 84 got rejected). The thing is that any university you go to, they need a similar distribution of marks for each course (especially for courses with a large number of people), so the profs have to make the tests in way such there is a pretty normal distribution of marks. So going to a school where there is high competition makes it harder for you to get the grades you want. So for med school, going to a less competitive school makes a lot of sense. It's surprising to me that so many med schools in Ontario do not give much thought into the mcat, because standardized tests are a real good way to even up the playing field IMO.

 

Interesting point Timmy. From that, I am wondering who standardized tests would be levelling the playing field for. Do you know?

[The Law]

The thing is that any university you go to, they need a similar distribution of marks for each course (especially for courses with a large number of people), so the profs have to make the tests in way such there is a pretty normal distribution of marks.

 

I understand what you're saying, but I've taken courses that were far away from a normal distribution of marks. They didn't really care that it wasn't normal lol. That being said, most of my courses do have a normal mark distribution.

 

As for standardized testing, I'm not really sure that this completely levels the playing field. The only reason that I think they are a good idea is because, no matter what people will say, I do think some programs are harder than other programs. Standardized testing is an objective way to look at people's performances.

 

Now, I understand the flip side of that too. Studies have shown that some groups may tend to underperform other groups. Many reasons have been proposed for this, but I believe accesibility of resources is the major issue. Some people can't afford to hire a private tutor to teach them for 80 hours so they can get a super high score. The thing is though- while some people may gain an advantage, you can usually still do pretty well on these tests (such as the MCAT) if you independently study.

 

No matter how you look at it though, nothing will ever be 100% fair. But that's just life...

[Goldenboy6]

No matter how you look at it though, nothing will ever be 100% fair. But that's just life...

 

That's true, it will never be completely fair, but I think the bias in the mcat is less prevalent than the one concerning location of undergraduate study. I mean, if you look at two first year biology classes from two different schools, and one school's entering class had a 90% average in high school, and the other school's entering class had an 80% average in high school, if both classes pretty much end up with a similar mark distribution, then going to the more competitive school is a great disadvantage for the average student. I can see where there can be a financial bias when concerning the mcat but then, any test could really show a financial bias because rich people can afford tutors to help them with material they don't understand. When you are in med school, you are going to have to pass tough exams so I really don't understand the arguments people make against the mcat. Am I the only one?

[Kuantum]

That's true, it will never be completely fair, but I think the bias in the mcat is less prevalent than the one concerning location of undergraduate study. I mean, if you look at two first year biology classes from two different schools, and one school's entering class had a 90% average in high school, and the other school's entering class had an 80% average in high school, if both classes pretty much end up with a similar mark distribution, then going to the more competitive school is a great disadvantage for the average student. I can see where there can be a financial bias when concerning the mcat but then, any test could really show a financial bias because rich people can afford tutors to help them with material they don't understand. When you are in med school, you are going to have to pass tough exams so I really don't understand the arguments people make against the mcat. Am I the only one?

 

Or rich people had the accessibility to better education while growing up or the well-educated environment in which to develop such skills. To really level the playing field, the MCAT is not a solution nor is adjusting the type of people so it represents the general population. Those are ways of doing it, however, hitting children at an early age, ensuring social programs are in place that allow many to have the opportunity to pursue professional studies is what is important. There is a huge difference in not being able to pass because you didn't know the stuff even though you were given access and failing because you didn't even know what was on the test.

[Smurfette]

Back to the original question...

 

If you aren't enjoying your program at U of T (especially the content, the environment) and you think that the program at Waterloo is a better fit for you, then I say switch!

 

However, if you're simply thinking of an easy way out (cuz exams are coming soon and the term hasn't gone quite as well as you'd hoped), then I would say that maybe you should work hard to improve. Some creativity in approaching learning can be useful. Maybe memorizing the notes hasn't worked for you. Try reading different textbooks/resources. Or try forming a study group. If you don't put in an effort, you're not going to do well in any program. The grass isn't always greener on the other side...

[wendiz]

actually.. i m getting pretty decent marks so far in first year... around 3.8 ish..? it's true i m getting lots of stress from all the work and everything.. cuz bascially the prof don't realli teach.. i gotta just learn everything from text book. but i guess i m realli not enjoying this program and the environment and the social life, everybody just seem to be on their own, no interaction and also.. cuz med school is a pretty hard thing to get into.. so wat if i fail it? i need some backup. i could be wrong, but, i think life sci degree won't give you much chances in the job market after u get ur B. Sc, so u gotta do research lab work and get into Grad school.. but i m not realli interested in areas like research and doing scientific experiments all day.. soo if i fail med school... i m just left with something that i really don't like..

[peachy]

The thing is that any university you go to, they need a similar distribution of marks for each course (especially for courses with a large number of people), so the profs have to make the tests in way such there is a pretty normal distribution of marks.

Imho, this is largely false. I know of engineering programs with very strong students where the marks are belled up so that every course has approximately a B+ average. Lots of people end up having high A+'s under this system, because as long as you can beat the curve you do well. On the other hand, I took numerous courses in undergrad with no doubt much weaker students where the averages were low C's, and there was no expected distribution of grades. Often in these courses nobody or almost nobody was given an A+. So I don't think it's true that grades uniformly reflect the quality of students in the program.

 

Where I do think it matters is that it's easier to slide by with mediocre grades if you're in a program with largely weak students. That is, you can get a C or maybe even a B sometimes with minimal work because there's a larger group of very weak students. On the other hand, this isn't going to help you get into med school... No matter what program you are in, no matter how weak the students are in general, there are going to be that group of good students who are trying to get an A+. It's not easy anywhere.

[The_B]

I agree with you Peachy for science students (which are the majority here), but for social sciences or arts, I would assume that the bell is pretty significant and you are marked largely against others.

[edge_w]

It seems a little silly to me to switch schools just to chase a higher GPA. I mean, logically, it makes sense: If the average entrance grades for two schools are 75% and 90%, and the average class mark is the same, say a B, for both schools, then it follows a certain portion of people at the better school are getting a lower grade than they would have at the other school.

 

Nonetheless, changing schools doesn't necessarily guarantee that you'll be one of those people, since grades are influenced by so many different factors.

 

Remember that undergrad is about so much more than a silly number! Choose your school based on its environment, the city, the social atmosphere... Smaller schools have their advantages with smaller classes therefore more interactions with professors and, some would argue, a better learning experience. Larger institutions also have their bonuses due to the sheer amount of resources that are available to you, in terms of research positions, etc.

 

Most canadian med schools, I think, disregard where you went per say, in their decisions. This is because the average quality of education, no matter where you go in Canada, be it at Trent or McGill, is actually quite high. There is far more variablility in the States, and I think that's why they probably give far more weight to the reputation of your school.

 

Key to the decision though, I think, is indeed choosing something that you LIKE, and yes, something that if med school doesn't work out, you will still be able to use... If you don't like research, well maybe its not your thing and you should consider a transfer. I would suggest, however, that you give it a try first (find a prof that you think you like, and go ask him to apply for an NSERC summer grant, you have nothing to lose!)

[muchdutch]

Key to the decision though, I think, is indeed choosing something that you LIKE, and yes, something that if med school doesn't work out, you will still be able to use...

 

I'll start a whole new debate here: but how useful is a non-applicable degree? I'm not talking the degree programs that actually prepare you for a specific profession (not only law, meds, dent, but also education, engineering), but for general programs - arts, science, humanities, health science, life sciences, etc. I know far more people who have convocated and aren't using their degree in what they're doing, rather than the other way around. And yet I know a lot of people who have done technical schools and are making multiple times what some of my friends with science degrees are now, and they are actually working in their fields.

 

So, if medicine is the ultimate goal, and you should still choose something you'll be able to use if that doesn't turn out, but medical schools don't recognize technical schools and other types of education that prepare individuals directly for the workforce, does that mean that we're all stuck with our (semi)useless degrees?

 

Discuss.

[Goldenboy6]

Imho, this is largely false. I know of engineering programs with very strong students where the marks are belled up so that every course has approximately a B+ average. Lots of people end up having high A+'s under this system, because as long as you can beat the curve you do well. On the other hand, I took numerous courses in undergrad with no doubt much weaker students where the averages were low C's, and there was no expected distribution of grades. Often in these courses nobody or almost nobody was given an A+. So I don't think it's true that grades uniformly reflect the quality of students in the program.

 

Where I do think it matters is that it's easier to slide by with mediocre grades if you're in a program with largely weak students. That is, you can get a C or maybe even a B sometimes with minimal work because there's a larger group of very weak students. On the other hand, this isn't going to help you get into med school... No matter what program you are in, no matter how weak the students are in general, there are going to be that group of good students who are trying to get an A+. It's not easy anywhere.

 

Unfortunately, the case you are discussing seems to me like an isolated case, as I do not know many professors that would bell marks up to make the average B+. In fact, most professors have told me that they cannot have too many A's, that is why if the first test in a class has a high average, most of the time the profs will make the 2nd test harder to bring the average down. My point is that if you are at a less competitive school, the average of that first test will not be as high, and thus the profs will not have to make subsequent tests harder and it will be easier for a student to maintain a higher grade. I am not saying the quality of education is any less, but the mark you achieve will be dependant on the quality of students in the class. And it can effect your chances with med school. Perhaps you ended up with a B+ in some courses even though you tried real hard, but too many people were getting A's because its a very competitive school.

 

School's generally do want their averages to be within a certain range, that is why the bell curve is used. And, most of the time, this average is irrespective of the quality of students that enter.

[edge_w]

So, if medicine is the ultimate goal, and you should still choose something you'll be able to use if that doesn't turn out, but medical schools don't recognize technical schools and other types of education that prepare individuals directly for the workforce, does that mean that we're all stuck with our (semi)useless degrees?

Discuss.

 

Well, I suppose it depends on what your plan B is... The fact of the matter is that an undergraduate degree isn't supposed to be job training... Its supposed to, on paper, be a time of intellectual development where you are given the freedom to learn and explore different areas..... And as well, I mean, most jobs out there don't have a special 'degree' attached to them, so alot of doors remain open with a B.A.......

 

I guess if you really want to head to med school, but keep as many options open as possible, your best option is some sort of business or management degree.... if you're into that kind of thing...

[muchdutch]

In fact, most professors have told me that they cannot have too many A's ... Perhaps you ended up with a B+ in some courses even though you tried real hard, but too many people were getting A's because its a very competitive school.

 

 

Don't ever let a prof tell you that they cannot have too many A's. I have worked for administration at a university and I know that most prof's do say this, although I also know the reality that if a prof thinks that their class is excellent, they can discuss the matter with the dean and this 'rule' can be waived (not always). I realize I can't generalize for every university, but it seems absurd to me that there might be a university out there where a prof would want to give lots of A's in a class with an average mark of 89% (for example), and the university would say no dice. So challenge what your prof says - I have. It didn't change my mark, nor did I want it to, but most profs are unaware that they can challenge things like this and the students end up suffering as a result.

 

ps- Yes, the bell-curve can work very hard against you despite your efforts as you say. My friend was in an anatomy class (full of pre-med keeners). The averages on the exams were in the mid 80's (which is about a B+-ish I think) but the curve meant that that mark was a C+ because it was a junior class. People grumbled but nobody officially complained and so nothing happened.