Mac Health Sci

[pikachu]

Are you capable of evolving by any chance? And if so, is it based on # of posts?

 

Yes, pikachu will evolve to raichu after obtaining a >9000 post count and being presented with a thunderstone. Maybe admin can bump my post count to make this possible .

[mattg]

Why does "program difference" automatically equate to less difficulty? Of course there are huge differences in HealthSci. There's only 160 students. The faculty cares. Emphasis on collaboration, group work, and self-directed learning from day one. Students are encouraged to value knowledge and the process of learning (not grades), and help each other out while doing it. There is also a tremendous amount of focus on self reflection and peer feedback, so much that at times it feels forced and students only come to appreciate the process retrospectively.

I know there is a huge program difference... I was referring to difference in difficulty to attain top marks between programs... if you really think that this debate is whether or not there is a difference in the program structure and dynamic between health sci and science, you completely misread/misunderstood everyone

 

Sure, a possible explanation for your keenly observed "statistically significant" difference may be due to grade inflation or easiness of the program, but that's not the whole picture. HealthSci is not the same as Science, and thus you should not expect Provost students to be distributed in a statistically random fashion. Perhaps HealthScis are just more motivated students, from collaborating with their peers and support from faculty. Perhaps HealthScis are better able to identify their own weaknesses and help each other out with constructive feedback. People are dynamic beings and the point of undergrad is to help them develop and reach their potential. By analyzing these statistics looking only at entering averages and their university GPA, you are ignoring that interaction.

I addressed this... I do not expect any similarities when comparing entire programs, because that would be riddled with bias and error... I know that grade inflation is not the ONLY explanation for the significant difference in Provost students... but to think that health sci students are just more motivated, better at identifying and fixing their weaknesses, and such intrinsic personal characteristics accounts for the entire massive discrepancy is just ignorant... that somehow health science picked ALL 51 (except 3) of the medicine-oriented people (attending Mac) that had the intrinsic characteristics that would allow them to achieve a 4.0... sure, the program itself does contribute to success, no doubt... they care more about students, students care more about each other, etc... but I can assure you, it alone does not account for the huge discrepancy

 

sure, there is a qualitative difference between programs... but that does not negate the fact that it is easier to academically succeed in one program... easier than other science programs... is the program better as a premed program? probably... but it is still easier to do well (which is part of the reason why it is a good premed program... and no, i'm in no way saying that this is the only reason... it is a great program in many other aspects)

[mattg]

The point of the initial part of the argument was that the low number of science student's on the provost's list might have been an abnormality. Obviously, 3 vs 48 is a statistically significant difference, but it still fails to attribute a causal relationship between hth sci difficulty and grades. All this says is there is a significant difference in health scis with 4.0s than science students. Honestly, no one on this forum will ever truly be able to do this because there are too many factors to consider/eliminate (and probably some that we can't effectively measure) before you can definitively state that a significant amount of difference is based only on the ease of hth sci vs science.

True, no one can "definitevely" prove it... but it can be proven *beyond reasonable doubt* (lol)... reasonable is the key word... the difference is massively significant... not much can be attributed to intelligence, because as I mentioned in a previous post, there are a ton of 90+% average high school students entering science programs each year... probably as many, if not more, as the number of health science matriculates... so while as a program, health science is undeniable smarter (on average), there is still more than enough students (of 5000) with more or less comparable grades in science to "compete" (ie. are Provost-capable)... so program differences undeniably plays a HUGE role in the difference... and yes, some of it is likely due to the health science program providing a better learning environment... but to say that that accounts for all, or most, of the huge discrepancy is *unreasonable*

 

As I stated, my main point was to try to demonstrate that the 16x difference might be exaggerated compared to the actual difference. For example, if we decided that science isn't actually getting any more difficult (yes this is an assumption but provost's list isn't really a great indication of difficulty change because of the random/luck factors year to year that can mean a difference between a 3.99 and a 4.0 - thus there is no evidence that science is indeed getting harder), we could compare the 05-06 provost's science students (11) to the massive number of health scis last year (48) and the difference is only 4.4x.

Sure you could do that... but firstly, you are picking which stats suit your argument best lol... if we were assuming random variation, you could average the past few years if you wanted (which I would say is fair)... and I know what you're going to say - well you could do the same thing with health science too... no, that's not true... while variations of 3, 11, and some other small number accounts for the science 4.0's over the past few years does fall within the possibility of random variation... going steadily from 15 (i think someone said?) to 48 (out of 700) over the past 3 years is NOT random variation... so the difference would be more than 4.4x... and even so, that is still too large of a difference to be fully accounted for by inherent differences in the individuals and the programs' environments... you're talking about it like it's not a big number, but I think you're forgetting that the faculty of science is 7x as big as the faculty of health science... and yea, probably a few thousand aren't even close to being considered comparable in this argument, but a large number (definitely at least 500 got 90+% in high school) are comparable to health sci students in intelligence/work ethic... so, yea even 5x (definite underestimate) IS a huge difference in a program 7x smaller, to be accounted for by quality of the program/environment

 

As for the high school numbers, the point was we don't have enough data to explicitly state that there are more health scis that are provost's capable or not. Mattg argued that there are probably the same number of these students in both programs (although he did state that there could be less) but in the end used that assumption of equality to compare the absolute numbers for his 16x number. Now if we take his concession that maybe there are 2x or 4x more provost capable students, the 4.4x number above starts to look a little less suspicious.

There are 2x at most... no, i don't have specific numbers, but it is common sense... there are a TON of 90+% averages that get denied from health science (this is a fact)... the supplementary factor is a huge deciding factor... otherwise there would be no supplementary application, they would just take people who meet the cut-off... I would say anyone with a 90 average in high school is capable of a 4.0 in university... 200 health sci students matriculate each year... you really don't think, out of the 1200+ matriculating science students at Mac, that at least 100, probably 200, had a 90 average? there is NO WAY the number is less than 100, which means, at most, there are 2x as many provost-capable most in health science... I'm sure the number is less, but I'll give it to you... and 4.4x as the difference is suspicious in itself, as I mentioned earlier, arrived at by selecting the most fitting years for your argument... so yea, the numbers still look quite suspicious to me

 

if anything, your best argument with this point would probably be that Mac has a terrible science department, and people with high marks who don't get into health science go elsewhere... and Mac's science faculty is made up of people who didn't do as well in high school... I highly doubt this is true, but it would be a more valid argument for you lol... but I'm sure if you looked at the admissions cut-off to mac science (what is it nowadays... 82%? 84%? or is this the average? regardless) there are a fair number of matriculates with a 90+% high school average

 

Also, as a side note there shouldn't be a huge preference for 95+ averages over 90+ averages based on the way hth sci admissions work, since marks are a tiebreaker. Thus, only the people with borderline supp app scores are getting in based on their 95+ average so a disproportionate number of of 95% shouldn't result based on the admissions process. That said, obviously 95+ isn't a perfect measure - hell arguably there could be a genius kid in science that smoked up and got drunk every day in high school and managed to just get the marks to get into science but then started to actually try in university and gets a 4.0 - but we unfortunately we lack the more effective data on 90%+ students.

not sure what you were saying here...

 

Perhaps the ease of 12s in some courses arises from the fact that the hth sci dean is a proponent for undergraduate courses going to a pass/fail system (perhaps this is a bit of a de-rail, but would this really be such a bad thing since we have to write MCATs for most schools anyhow? Residency matching seems to be going along without med school exam marks). As has been stated, the hth sci staff desperately try to take the focus away from marks and shift it towards meaningful learning experiences. Maybe the hth sci instructors feel they cannot achieve this without being generous in the amounts of 12s they distribute given the competitiveness of pre-med students and med school admissions in canada. Perhaps in the absence of a pass/fail system, the best way propagate the learning environment they want is to make 12s easily obtainable...

that is against your argument if anything... but you're right, admissions gpa's seem to be decreasing (ie. at Mac, Western)... but gpa is still king at UofT (most people's first choice) and Ottawa... so until the day when gpa's don't mean much, "making 12s easily obtainable" for a small, select few, is not a moot issue

[pikachu]

You are forgetting I never really intended to argue that hth sci grades are not inflated, simply making an attempt to reduce the (still significant) numbers, so picking my 11 vs 48, is analogous to you using 3 vs 48 - the point is to show a range that the difference might lie. We could use the mean of the 3 years of science provosts data we have and use 7 and we'd get a difference of ~7x.

 

If you noticed the last paragraph in both of my longer points have been things that might help describe the greater ease of high achievement in hth sci. Is the argument in my last post fair to people outside the program? Probably not, but that wasn't my point. That point and the previous point about the number of electives in the hth sci curriculum were attempts to create dialogue on how these differences are arising and potential solutions to those problems. Honestly, the biggest issue, in my opinion, isn't the number of student's on the provost's list - chances are students who get a 4.0 in hth sci are going to have 4.0 or very close to it in any program (so with the exception of having the provost's medal to put on their resume, their OMSAS average is still going to be high and will still be extremely competitive applicants) - the problem is that hth sci grading doesn't bring down the grades of the less smart/slacker people in the program. For the most part, these people are probably still going to get at least a 3.8 (probably closer to 3.9) average. I would argue that the 4.0 hth scis are comparable to most other people getting 4.0s or high 3.9s, but the people with the lower marks in hth sci might not be as comparable to non hth sci students achieving those grades.

[mattg]

I agree with most of that post

 

especially the fact that the most important problem (and I believe the reason why people get annoyed) is that people who wouldn't necessarily do well in other programs are able to glide by with straight A's in health science... at other universities in many programs, straight A's means you worked you ass off and had no life... if not for this reason only, health sci grades are not very comparable to other program's grades

 

HOWEVER, I also agree that people with a 4.0 would do quite well in the normal science program, although I doubt if health science dissolved into the science faculty the number of 4.0's would increase by 2500%... I would think if health sci'ers were in science, maybe 6-8 at most would maintain a 4.0 (but yes, the others would still do well - probably 3.95+)... the only reason I use the provost honour roll to compare faculties, is because it is the only way I see you can make a legitimate comparison... if you compare program averages, the science program has a ton of average and below average students, so the numbers would be hugely skewed... in comparing 4.0's, you are comparing elite with elite (presumably of relative comparable intelligence/work ethic)

 

but yea, i'd agree that there isn't AS big of a discrepancy as 16x portrays, but still quite a large one... I agree that the program does facilitate learning better, and people with 4.0 would undoubtedly have competitive grades in other programs (I am not arguing that people with 4.0 aren't smart... would they all have 4.0 in science? no, but a fair number would, and they would all be very competitive... as I said, the Provost stats are just a mode of comparison between faculties)... but I would still say a large part of the discrepancy is due to ease of getting high marks... that said, many health sci courses require a lot of work (but the *effort* is largely enough to do well), it is a very good premed program (i would recommend it to anyone thinking of going into meds), and has many smart people... there is just grade inflation, which as you said, allows some people to just coast, while others working much harder may not even have the grades to get a single interview in canada

[UTPEOPLE]

I agree with most of that post

 

especially the fact that the most important problem (and I believe the reason why people get annoyed) is that people who wouldn't necessarily do well in other programs are able to glide by with straight A's in health science... at other universities in many programs, straight A's means you worked you ass off and had no life... if not for this reason only, health sci grades are not very comparable to other program's grades

 

HOWEVER, I also agree that people with a 4.0 would do quite well in the normal science program, although I doubt if health science dissolved into the science faculty the number of 4.0's would increase by 2500%... I would think if health sci'ers were in science, maybe 6-8 at most would maintain a 4.0 (but yes, the others would still do well - probably 3.95+)... the only reason I use the provost honour roll to compare faculties, is because it is the only way I see you can make a legitimate comparison... if you compare program averages, the science program has a ton of average and below average students, so the numbers would be hugely skewed... in comparing 4.0's, you are comparing elite with elite (presumably of relative comparable intelligence/work ethic)

 

but yea, i'd agree that there isn't AS big of a discrepancy as 16x portrays, but still quite a large one... I agree that the program does facilitate learning better, and people with 4.0 would undoubtedly have competitive grades in other programs (I am not arguing that people with 4.0 aren't smart... would they all have 4.0 in science? no, but a fair number would, and they would all be very competitive... as I said, the Provost stats are just a mode of comparison between faculties)... but I would still say a large part of the discrepancy is due to ease of getting high marks... that said, many health sci courses require a lot of work (but the *effort* is largely enough to do well), it is a very good premed program (i would recommend it to anyone thinking of going into meds), and has many smart people... there is just grade inflation, which as you said, allows some people to just coast, while others working much harder may not even have the grades to get a single interview in canada

 

Lol... mattg.. carrying on the proud tradition... Its almost like natural selection... everytime one person tires... another will pick on the slack... A chicken's gizzard is essential, and I guess having Mac Health Scis out there motivates us more?

 

lol... keep up the excellent reasoning mattg, and hopefully we can all end up in med school one day and have a good drink about this...

[mattg]

Lol... mattg.. carrying on the proud tradition... Its almost like natural selection... everytime one person tires... another will pick on the slack... A chicken's gizzard is essential, and I guess having Mac Health Scis out there motivates us more?

 

lol... keep up the excellent reasoning mattg, and hopefully we can all end up in med school one day and have a good drink about this...

 

lol, true

 

i don't even know what i'm arguing anymore... it seems like most of the health sci's are agreeing there is grade inflation, but just saying its either useless to talk about or not as much as people think?... i dunno, i'm getting tired too lol, but i feel the need to continue replying since I started it (I think... not even sure who did)... yea I'm sure no one cares anymore once in med school

[UTPEOPLE]

lol, true

 

i don't even know what i'm arguing anymore... it seems like most of the health sci's are agreeing there is grade inflation, but just saying its either useless to talk about or not as much as people think?... i dunno, i'm getting tired too lol, but i feel the need to continue replying since I started it (I think... not even sure who did)... yea I'm sure no one cares anymore once in med school

 

yeah... classic resting on the laurels there, saying that there is a problem... deal with it! So we will do our best to change the world order... since after all... we are somewhat the millenium generation..

 

P.S... Yes... I do occasionally entertain thoughts of world domination...

[dreamer87]

Lol... mattg.. carrying on the proud tradition... Its almost like natural selection... everytime one person tires... another will pick on the slack... A chicken's gizzard is essential, and I guess having Mac Health Scis out there motivates us more?

 

lol... keep up the excellent reasoning mattg, and hopefully we can all end up in med school one day and have a good drink about this...

 

i'm definitely a fan of mattg as well - good debating skills!

 

for me, i don't even need to see statistics - i have my own real life experience. from my high school, i was one of the three people who came to UTSG......the high school i went to had a gifted program, and even the "academic" level students were very competitive...and out of our huge graduating class - just 3 people came to UTSG. the rest all went to mac health sci or york (a couple went to wilfrid laurier or something like that too, lol). got their awesome GPAs and are in med now. i can count about 6-7 of them who got in after 3rd year, and they all had one thing in common: none went to western, queens or U of T

 

the three who went to U of T - none are in med. ones who went to western - none. so i guess for me, it speaks for itself. i don't think people ever admit that they had it easy - but i guess they do know.

[tooty]

i haven't read the entire thread but found it very interesting.

 

i've heard anecdotes from friends who've either attended mac health sci or have TA'd in a mac health sci course that the program is an absolute joke --a factory for medical school, if you will. that's just what i've heard.

 

i'm sure proponents of the program can (and have) point out many a difficult course and say "look, people can get Cs and Ds!" While the nay-sayers are going to keep saying nay. but the issue isn't whether it's _possible_ to get good or bad grades, it is whether, on average, the mac health sci program hands out grades significantly higher than other science programs. but the issue is complicated further because you can argue that, because the program has such high admission requirements, the students are simply smarter and/or have a better work ethic than students from other programs.

 

it would be awesome if someone does a blinded study on students from a variety of programs, including mac health sci, and looks at the class averages in relation to the quality of the student bodies. maybe it already exists? it would certainly be a heavy undertaking.

 

edit: looks like a bunch of what i mentioned has been discussed a few pages back. i'd like to add that in order for the study to be reliable, you would have to compare students outside of mac health sci who finished high school with similar credentials as those in mac health sci, and look at all of their averages. this would eliminate greater intelligence or stronger work ethic as possible contributing factors to mac health sci's inflated grades.

 

for the record, i didn't attend the mac health sci program but i do hate on it. however, i absolutely don't hate on the students who attend it; they're just playing the med school game and they're playing it well. if you told me to my face you're in mac health sci, i'd genuinely congratulate you on having your sh1t straight. i'm sure mac health sci students can get a decent education and learn all kinds of fun science facts etc., but so can other programs from other schools, who don't hand out 90s like candy. so just admit the program is a joke and we'll all get along. imo.

[ygella]

Guy lets say one does not get accepted to MAC health sci, and has to choose between Mcgill, Western, Queens or MAC life sci. Which would be the better choice?

[ChicoMaki]

perhaps better asked in the general forum.

[mattg]

I have *never* worked as hard (not even close) as I did during grade 11 and 12 of high school. I doubt I ever will.

 

lol i highly doubt that if you're hoping to go into meds

[hopeforthebest]

 

I am very glad I had the opporunity to study a scientific subject I was passionate about in depth during my undergrad. A big part of my interest in medicine stems from an underlying interest in science. To me, having courses based on soft skills seems like a waste of time and money. I would rather (and did) spend my class time on content-based learning, and pick up soft skills through work, ECs, and actually living life. Hell, I even thought lab and research courses were a waste of time, as I learnt *far* more in the way of lab and research skills working at an actual lab throughout my undergrad.

 

Absolutely.

[UTPEOPLE]

Perhaps. But I was pretty busy in undergrad too. At one point, taking 5 courses, working 40 hours a week, and volunteering/ECs, and I was still getting more sleep than in high school. At least I know I'm prepared for the work load of med school.

 

Dude... at one point? this was my schedule for the last 8 years... lol

[itimebomb2]

i dont know about you, but 5 courses at my school requires at least 20 hours of class. if you add that to 40 hours of work... doing homework...studying... etc... i cant help but think you're probably skimping/half-assing a lot of those responsibilities.

[itimebomb2]

Wow, this thread is mind-boggling-ly long. I didn't even know mac health sci existed until I met someone from that program at my interview at UWO last week. We were comparing our undergrad experiences. He said that mac health sci is what got him to that interview, and he wouldn't be there without that program. He mentioned that the program was great for teaching communication skills, etc., but also said that he felt he didn't actually learn anything in his time there. Basically, almost all his classes taught soft skills, which are useful, but he felt that if he didn't get into med school, his degree was useless as he hadn't actually learnt any field of study.

 

was this person sitting next to you at oscar taylors? cause if so - that was me. lol

 

EDIT: i think i over-exaggerated the importance of "soft skills" in the hsci program. i think i emphasized them because they are the most memorable (and probably the most marketable) facets of what I gained from the program. the truth is, I have been equipped with a solid fundamental background in the "health sciences", which explains why I've found it so easy to procure paying research positions from numerous hospitals over the years.

 

I suppose what HSci lacks, which your program apparently offers, is highly specific and intense education on a particular scientific topic, for example biochemistry. While having that kind of background is useful if you are actually interested in biochemistry (or whatever subject), I believe the average person in such a program ends up doing something that has nothing to do with their UG major, making all those hours in class/library a wasted effort. In fact, most of these people probably wished they took an easier program which would have instead equipped them with useful life skills like communications, group work, practical research skills etc. so that they can get into medicine, or anything else not biochemistry related for that matter.

 

Who really remembers all the crap they learn in school anyways? I swear I've studied the Krebs cycle for tests/exams at least 4 times and I still have no idea what it is. lol.

[Cyradis]

lol i highly doubt that if you're hoping to go into meds

 

Actually so far at all my interviews the 1st year students have told me that 1st year medical school is FAR more relaxed/chill than undergrad.... Same with 2nd year medical school.

 

With that said, I'm told that 3rd year/clerkships is absolutely brutal =)

[kalia]

Actually so far at all my interviews the 1st year students have told me that 1st year medical school is FAR more relaxed/chill than undergrad.... Same with 2nd year medical school.

 

With that said, I'm told that 3rd year/clerkships is absolutely brutal =)

 

depends on medical school, depends on grading system.

[sgt.pepper]