Mac Health Sci

[itimebomb2]

I did 4 years at Mac, and have taken many health science courses over the years, and the averages are always around 11 - that's my source... what's yours? you've taken, what 3 first year health sci courses in your one completed semester?..... also keep in mind that many of the ones that I have taken are those open to science students as well, which have traditionally lower averages and are more "normal", but still the marks were quite high (plus I have also taken a fair number of pure health sci courses, which I got pre-req's waived)

im a 4th yr hth sci at mac, and thats my source.

 

Your assumption that the averages are around 11 is plain wrong. hth sci course have averages closer to 10.

 

secondly, your assumption that the hth sci courses that are open to science students have lower averages -- also wrong. there is no difference - at least none that you can justifiably prove. my lowest marks are all in pure hth sci courses.

[ott8]

Well to start off, I think Mac Health Sci is definitely the way to go if somebody is set on medicine. In fact, I wish that I had known about it when applying to undergrad 5 years ago. I actually convinced my younger brother to learn from my mistake and go there (which he is). Being in a program that actually promotes a career in medicine, and doesn't look down on it because it is not research (what I experienced during my undergrad) seems like the place to be.

 

However, those of you that think that Mac draws in all of the brightest students, or that you are the top of the crop for getting in and somehow deserve an easier acceptance into medicine is absurd. In my neighborhood, most people don't go away for school because they can't afford to, and this doesn't make them any less bright or deserving.

 

What my brother is learning at Mac is no different than what I learned. That "really hard" cell bio class is the same material that I learned in first year anatomy/cell bio classes, just tested differently. The chem, calc, physics he takes are all the same material. It does take a lot of hard work to learn the material, and I'm not saying that those at Mac don't work hard. The problem that most people have (from what I've gathered), is that those at Mac seem to get a higher GPA return for their work/knowledge than those at other schools.

[ott8]

Also, the difference in grading pedagogy between Mac and the rest of the province seems fairly obvious. The idea of a class average over 80% (10) in anything is ridiculous. In my 4-year science degree, I had 3 classes that had averages over 75% (Stats, an upper-year honours lab, and 4th year seminar). I did, however, have classes that had averages below 60%, and classes where 90's simply were not given out.

[UTPEOPLE]

lol... and that stuff about determining method of action? Pretty basic stuff... technically is grade 12 stuff if you bothered to read carefully for the National Bio competition.

 

Occam's Razor route. itching and irritation are symptoms of allergies... so why provide a muscle preparation? ANY U OF T SCIENCE STUDENT would know that they are expecting you to investigate the mutual role of calcium in the activation of mast or muscle cells... Although obviously, the effects on muscle and mast cells could arise from different areas... but with that starting point... that project would be likely done in a few days or two.

 

In the U of T Vic One FIRST YEAR PROGRAM... We had to design a novel, meaningful and plausible (no pending future technology stuff) experiment, WHICH MUST HAVE NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE, on an actual field of study, not just your hypothetical situations. Several of these proposals have later become actual funded research NSERC projects... Those 30-60 papers that you read for your term... we did that in our weekend when we had to come up with a plausible proposal (in a field we never experienced before).

[ChexMix]

if you love your program so much, why don't you marry it?

[mattg]

Your assumption that the averages are around 11 is plain wrong. hth sci course have averages closer to 10.

 

okay... a 10-11 program course average... still unparalleled in any other program

[UTPEOPLE]

if you love your program so much, why don't you marry it?

 

I'm trying to, but I'm not in its league yet... the program has high standards... Its the one Health Sci's sugar daddy wants to dump health sci for...

 

The previous post was just to point out to pinklemonade that Mac Health Sci is not a magical wizards's den that the rest of us mere mortals could never hope to comprehend. You got an advantage... You're riding on the program's fame. Fine, but dont say that everyone else is inferior. The top people across Canada, the ones who win the science competitions for Canada, they come to U of T or queen's not Mac. You guys are good, but not the end all. Deal with it

[ChicoMaki]

I'm trying to, but I'm not in its league yet... the program has high standards... Its the one Health Sci's sugar daddy wants to dump health sci for...

 

The previous post was just to point out to pinklemonade that Mac Health Sci is not a magical wizards's den that the rest of us mere mortals could never hope to comprehend. You got an advantage... You're riding on the program's fame. Fine, but dont say that everyone else is inferior. The top people across Canada, the ones who win the science competitions for Canada, they come to U of T or queen's not Mac. You guys are good, but not the end all. Deal with it

 

When did anyone say that every other program is inferior. I have been on this forum for 3 years and not once have I seen a statement. Is health sci different? yes, that's it.

[cricket]

Also, the difference in grading pedagogy between Mac and the rest of the province seems fairly obvious. The idea of a class average over 80% (10) in anything is ridiculous. In my 4-year science degree, I had 3 classes that had averages over 75% (Stats, an upper-year honours lab, and 4th year seminar). I did, however, have classes that had averages below 60%, and classes where 90's simply were not given out.

 

Hey guys. I'm a BHSc alumni, and a mac med student. Year after year we always get the notorious complaints about our inflated GPAs, our superiority complex, and our lighter work load. Honestly, this is just nonsense.

 

When I was in health sci, we were the last year who took the non-health sci bio courses in their first year and let me just say that each and every student deserves the marks that they get. People have already commented that the program takes the brightest of the bunch -- as subjective as high school marks may be, they are still an objective measure of achievement. In my year, like every year, non-health sci students were complaining how our program always bellcurved its students marks in courses like Bio 1A03/1AA3 and Chem 1AO3/1AA3 -- these are bio and chem courses that all science students take in first year.

 

Turns out, the profs in each of these courses actually showed a graph of the midterm marks for the class average and the health sci average. Turns out that the whole course average for our first bio midterm was 65%, but the average for just the health scis were 85%!! For chemistry, the first midterm class average was 60% and the health sci average was 88%. To me, this says something.

 

Just trying to put things in perspective.

[UTPEOPLE]

That is because McMaster Hth Sci students dine on the toxic carp in Hamilton Harbour and it gives them super brain power beyond your comprehension!

 

exhibit 1.. lol

[UTPEOPLE]

Do I smell haterade?

 

I don't agree with your attitude, but I have said before that mcmaster health science is a pretty good prep program for med school ( I didn't attend mac health sci). However, mcmaster health science students at my school are lost in the crowd. They don't dominate but they don't get dominated either. Their skills (whether it be self directed learning, problem based learning, collaboration, communication, etc etc etc) are on par with everyone else basically. It goes to show you that you can relatively easilyattain those skills at other universities and programs. In the end (in med school), everyone had to pick up the skills that mcmaster health science advertises that they develop.

 

I feel from my anecdotal experience people's hate towards the program isn't really directed at the program, but more so the high school kids that think that their program is the only place where they can develp the skills for med school. Frankly, I welcome having a mac health sci student in my small groups any day.

 

that was for the Why dont you marry it poster

[panda__eyes]

Just for the record, the Vic One Program is only for first year students (one year program). The Vic One Program was useful in its introductory to the different aspects of science but I don't think it's fair to discuss it alongside McMaster's Health Science Program (whoever brought up Vic One). They are completely different especially in terms of objectives.

Also note that there was also grade inflation for the Vic One Program and the research grant, honestly, was not a very difficult task as there was guidance by mentors in the research field of interest. I'm not putting the program down as I thoroughly enjoyed it but try not to overrate it (I know that's subjective but seriously...)

[igeorgex]

I feel like we've hashed this argument out already. oh wait, on pm101 you can ALWAYS bash health sci and it never gets boring.

 

if you're worried that health scis are stealing all the spots in med school, then don't. 80-120 out of like 1000+ spots nation-wide are going to health scis each year. there's still hundreds of spots left. if you're serious about medicine, then you'll do what it takes to get one of those spots. what good comes out of complaining about what you can only PERCEIVE about another program? how does this help you? does this conjecture (because that's all it is really, unless you've done 2 undergrads and can compare BHSc to another program) make you feel better about yourself for being in a "more rewarding program", or one that you feel "actually gives you grades you deserve"?

 

accept that there are differences, and while it may appear unfair to you, this is the way our program is structured. not all students thrive in this environment, and until you experience it you cannot judge others on its merits. playing devil's advocate, BHSc students don't have the right to judge other programs and call them "easier" or "inferior". other programs are structured differently and we have no way of knowing how we would perform in that environment. BHSc is more group oriented and puts the onus of learning on the student often, while other traditional science programs may focus on individual learning with material dependent on the lecturer. it is not correct to say one is easier and the other harder; it depends on on the attitude one has when regarding their education.

 

I suggest we all strive for some self-improvement and focus on attaining our goals. the negativity this topic always brings up is, frankly, unhealthy and is surrounded by a great deal of immaturity and slander. regardless of the program we are in, everyone in here still has feelings; just because we can't see each other, doesn't mean we're not human. good luck to all of you on achieving whatever you are passionate about!

[discworldheavylight]

I feel like we've hashed this argument out already. oh wait, on pm101 you can ALWAYS bash health sci and it never gets boring.

 

if you're worried that health scis are stealing all the spots in med school, then don't. 80-120 out of like 1000+ spots nation-wide are going to health scis each year. there's still hundreds of spots left. if you're serious about medicine, then you'll do what it takes to get one of those spots. what good comes out of complaining about what you can only PERCEIVE about another program? how does this help you? does this conjecture (because that's all it is really, unless you've done 2 undergrads and can compare BHSc to another program) make you feel better about yourself for being in a "more rewarding program", or one that you feel "actually gives you grades you deserve"?

 

accept that there are differences, and while it may appear unfair to you, this is the way our program is structured. not all students thrive in this environment, and until you experience it you cannot judge others on its merits. playing devil's advocate, BHSc students don't have the right to judge other programs and call them "easier" or "inferior". other programs are structured differently and we have no way of knowing how we would perform in that environment. BHSc is more group oriented and puts the onus of learning on the student often, while other traditional science programs may focus on individual learning with material dependent on the lecturer. it is not correct to say one is easier and the other harder; it depends on on the attitude one has when regarding their education.

 

I suggest we all strive for some self-improvement and focus on attaining our goals. the negativity this topic always brings up is, frankly, unhealthy and is surrounded by a great deal of immaturity and slander. regardless of the program we are in, everyone in here still has feelings; just because we can't see each other, doesn't mean we're not human. good luck to all of you on achieving whatever you are passionate about!

 

well said george. both intelligent and articulate. it's nice to see that rationality and logic come across much better than rabid slander.

 

now take those excellent communication skills and go finish your health pol paper.

[infomeddude]

I feel like we've hashed this argument out already. oh wait, on pm101 you can ALWAYS bash health sci and it never gets boring.

 

if you're worried that health scis are stealing all the spots in med school, then don't. 80-120 out of like 1000+ spots nation-wide are going to health scis each year. there's still hundreds of spots left. if you're serious about medicine, then you'll do what it takes to get one of those spots. what good comes out of complaining about what you can only PERCEIVE about another program? how does this help you? does this conjecture (because that's all it is really, unless you've done 2 undergrads and can compare BHSc to another program) make you feel better about yourself for being in a "more rewarding program", or one that you feel "actually gives you grades you deserve"?

 

accept that there are differences, and while it may appear unfair to you, this is the way our program is structured. not all students thrive in this environment, and until you experience it you cannot judge others on its merits. playing devil's advocate, BHSc students don't have the right to judge other programs and call them "easier" or "inferior". other programs are structured differently and we have no way of knowing how we would perform in that environment. BHSc is more group oriented and puts the onus of learning on the student often, while other traditional science programs may focus on individual learning with material dependent on the lecturer. it is not correct to say one is easier and the other harder; it depends on on the attitude one has when regarding their education.

 

I suggest we all strive for some self-improvement and focus on attaining our goals. the negativity this topic always brings up is, frankly, unhealthy and is surrounded by a great deal of immaturity and slander. regardless of the program we are in, everyone in here still has feelings; just because we can't see each other, doesn't mean we're not human. good luck to all of you on achieving whatever you are passionate about!

 

Why are your trying to make it sound like its perfectly normal for this many people from one program to be getting accepted to med. More people from this program are getting accepted to Medical school than all of the pre-meds from all the programs at my University(we usually have 16 graduating students getting accepted to med each year)

[cricket]

Interesting to see this discussion again. I'm seeing vitriol from both sides of the issue. The issue is whether there is grade inflation in Mac Health Sci.

 

From a staff physician's perspective: Mac Health Sci is believes to have siginificant grade inflation by virtually all physicians in Ontario involved with the admission process. This general feeling among admission staff is not conjecture - it is fact, and IS discussed. Arguing this point is silly.

 

This in itself is conjecture. There aren't even physicians teaching the core health science courses, unless you're doing a research project (which, like all other programs, students of any program can choose their own supervisors).

 

Stop hating on health sci.

[2011hope]

Interesting to see this discussion again. I'm seeing vitriol from both sides of the issue. The issue is whether there is grade inflation in Mac Health Sci.

 

From a staff physician's perspective: Mac Health Sci is believes to have siginificant grade inflation by virtually all physicians in Ontario involved with the admission process. This general feeling among admission staff is not conjecture - it is fact, and IS discussed. Arguing this point is silly.

 

Most physicians however don't care/can't be bothered. Others do care, but making a fuss on the issue is irrelevant to their lives and they don't want the added stress of 'doing something'.

 

Anyways, I suspect the matter will be fixed in the future. The MCAT is one route of course, another is adjusting GPAs based on one's ranking in individual in each class taken (based on the class averages - which MAC is unique in as it does not supply it on their transcripts).

 

Anyways...no need to be angry. Health Sci Students have a big advantage at the moment. But so do people from SW Ontario, rural people, aborigonals, Ottawa people, french speakers, ad nauseum.

 

This is ridiculous. You can tell your fellow physician involved with the admissions process that this is hogwash. As I have said many times before in this thread, I am a mac hth sci grad and I got plenty of A+ and A grades in my non-health sci courses but got only A-s or even B grades in most of my health sci courses. I also have several health sci friends who also got lower grades in hth sci courses (Cs and Ds even). All of my highest grades are from non-health sci courses and all of my lowest grades are from health sci courses.

 

Believe me, I WISH it were true that grades were so easy to come-by in health sci. If that were the case, I wouldn't be doing a 2nd degree at a different university (one that many people in this thread say is harder to get good grades at, but where I am finding A+ grades easier to get than in health sci) to raise my gpa to get into med school.

[mattg]

I find it very hard to believe that you have many friends who got C's and D's in health science classes... I have taken many, and - other than a some that are legitimately graded - it would be honestly hard to get a C (you would literally have to just not hand things in, not show up to class, etc)...

 

the fact that you had a hard time with health sci courses doesn't say much... perhaps their style is just so far from one that is best suited for you, and other normal science classes are better suited for you (ie. if you prefer tests and such, and are not good at presentations/writing)... it doesn't change the fact that the averages in health science classes are A's, whereas they are C's and low B's in most science classes... doesn't change the fact that 85% of the Provost honour roll is made up of health sci students, while they only make up <1% of the university (that stat alone is such a joke to me)... when comparing programs, all we can do is look at averages, not individuals...

 

it's funny to me that as this debate goes on, health sci students are moving from that stand that health sci grades are not significantly different (inflated) from all other programs, to it is actually much harder to do well in health science than normal science courses/programs... numbers don't lie...

 

This is ridiculous. You can tell your fellow physician involved with the admissions process that this is hogwash. As I have said many times before in this thread, I am a mac hth sci grad and I got plenty of A+ and A grades in my non-health sci courses but got only A-s or even B grades in most of my health sci courses. I also have several health sci friends who also got lower grades in hth sci courses (Cs and Ds even). All of my highest grades are from non-health sci courses and all of my lowest grades are from health sci courses.

 

Believe me, I WISH it were true that grades were so easy to come-by in health sci. If that were the case, I wouldn't be doing a 2nd degree at a different university (one that many people in this thread say is harder to get good grades at, but where I am finding A+ grades easier to get than in health sci) to raise my gpa to get into med school.

[mattg]

From a staff physician's perspective: Mac Health Sci is believes to have siginificant grade inflation by virtually all physicians in Ontario involved with the admission process. This general feeling among admission staff is not conjecture - it is fact, and IS discussed. Arguing this point is silly.

 

lol i find it hilarious to get confirmation (though anecdotal) that health sci grade inflation is well known at an admissions level, whether it be true or not

 

regardless, fact is i'm sure it doesn't change much... when you have a 3.95+, whether you're in health sci or not, you're going to look good and have a good shot at canadian schools (all other things considered)... it gets you past the cut-offs at Queens/Western/Ottawa (and meeting the cutoff is all that matters essentially)... I highly doubt Mac would discriminate lol (if anything, they would prefer a health sci over a non health sci, as they are familiar with the style of learning, and it increases the health sci's admission percentage, which only makes the program more elite and desirable)... UofT is the only school where it may make a difference, but like I said, with a 3.9/3.95+ gpa, I doubt it has *that much* of an impact...

 

as i've said before, most health sci students are smart, and actually are well-suited for med school... the debate is just whether or not there is grade inflation, and there is... i love all of these health sci students saying "ridiculous, i'm getting C's in all of my classes" (lol a bit of an exaggeration, but still:D)

[mig174]

Just for the record, the Vic One Program is only for first year students (one year program). The Vic One Program was useful in its introductory to the different aspects of science but I don't think it's fair to discuss it alongside McMaster's Health Science Program (whoever brought up Vic One). They are completely different especially in terms of objectives.

Also note that there was also grade inflation for the Vic One Program and the research grant, honestly, was not a very difficult task as there was guidance by mentors in the research field of interest. I'm not putting the program down as I thoroughly enjoyed it but try not to overrate it (I know that's subjective but seriously...)

 

keep in mind the class was ~22 ppl. prob not true of mac health sci classes. Also, it was 2 courses in first year (not 4 years) and a LOT of work which didn't necessarily give time to do well in other courses. But yes, the average was A-, so probably a bit inflated.

 

selection for vic one is quite stringent now, too...

[2011hope]

I find it very hard to believe that you have many friends who got C's and D's in health science classes... I have taken many, and - other than a some that are legitimately graded - it would be honestly hard to get a C (you would literally have to just not hand things in, not show up to class, etc)...

 

the fact that you had a hard time with health sci courses doesn't say much... perhaps their style is just so far from one that is best suited for you, and other normal science classes are better suited for you (ie. if you prefer tests and such, and are not good at presentations/writing)... it doesn't change the fact that the averages in health science classes are A's, whereas they are C's and low B's in most science classes... doesn't change the fact that 85% of the Provost honour roll is made up of health sci students, while they only make up <1% of the university (that stat alone is such a joke to me)... when comparing programs, all we can do is look at averages, not individuals...

 

 

I would expect you to find it hard to believe given that you, and so many others, seem to find it so easy to believe that health sci is some magical panacea of grades and a bastion of undeserved high grades. The issue here seems to be in the way many health sci courses are graded. i.e. the idea that "difficulty" is being defined in terms of the quantity and quality of factual materials that can be memorized and regurgitated on examinations and the idea that a grade should reflect how well someone deals with that difficulty. Health sci is more concerned with the process involved rather than the final result itself. Whereas a non-health sci course may grade you on say a written paper, a midterm, and a final exam, looking at those components in terms of the end product (and sometimes at intermediate stages), a health sci course would involve you being graded on the process itself. I don't think that doing so makes grades easier to come-by for all people. Rather, is is a different way of assigning grades and it certainly isn't unfair, especially when one considers that all academic programs have differences in how they assign grades.

 

As for the idea that I perform better on more objective exams rather than in papers and presentations accounting for my higher grades in non-health sci courses, well, that can be thrown out the window. In non health sci courses involving mostly paper-writing I got A+ grades, in non health sci courses involving presentations I got A+ grades, and in non health sci courses involving objective exams I got A+ grades. In health sci courses involving presentations, paper writing, and objective exams I tended to get lower grades. Just for the hell of it I took out my transcript and am looking at it right now. My average for my non-hth sci courses is indeed higher than my health sci average. And, like I said, I have friends for whom this is also the case.

 

Yes, it is true that many health sci courses have class averages that hover around 80 percent. I suggest that this is for the following reasons:

 

1) Almost everyone in each hth sci course is gunning for med/professional school. In a regular science class a lot of people are gunning for med school, but not everyone. I suspect that if you look at just those gunning for meds, they will have a higher average than the rest of the members of the regular science class.

 

2) The people in health sci are selected for. Health sci does not usually let in students that have not demonstrated a capability to achieve high grades. The people who are in health sci and getting As would be likely getting As in other programs as well. Indeed, I remember when I was a student some science professors, I think it was from a chemistry course, showed a graph of the class average as well as the average of the hth scis in the class. There was a significant gap!

 

3) There is a great deal of support and teamwork among health scis. We share resources and help each other a great deal more than the majority of people in other programs.

 

 

Finally, I want to make a comment about your statement that "85% of the Provost honour roll is made up of health sci students, while they only make up <1% of the university "

 

I see an interesting parallel here. The Jewish people make-up <1% of the population of the entire planet, yet approx 20% of the Nobel prize winners are members of the Jewish people! I have Jewish friends and one thing I know is how people like to hate on Jews. I can't help but notice the parallel here. Everyone is hating on health sci when the truth is that, just as the Jewish winners of the Nobel prize deserve them, us health scis deserve our grades. http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html and http://www.ish itech.co.il/1204ar3.htm

 

I once asked a very close friend of mine who is a member of the Jewish faith why she thinks so many great achievements have been accomplished by her people and she told me that there is a great value placed on education and knowledge and learning in the Jewish religion. I don't know if that makes sense, though, because she also told me that a lot of the Nobel prize winners were secular (like Einstein). But that doesn't matter. The point is, when people are successful the haters come-out of the woodwork.

[Poindextrose]

I'm a bit obsessed with running. I have this running calendar with inspirational quotes from influential running types (I know, it was a gift). One month has a blurb from a man who says he runs because he is a child, an animal, a spirit and a saint. He also lists his occupation as "cardiologist, philosopher and poet". Every time I see it, I roll my eyes at how seriously some people take themselves.

 

I think comparing the negative feelings regarding Health Scis to any lingering hostility that may still exist towards Jewish individuals warrants such a response.

 

I don't mean to be rude, but come on.

I see an interesting parallel here. The Jewish people make-up <1% of the population of the entire planet, yet approx 20% of the Nobel prize winners are members of the Jewish people! I have Jewish friends and one thing I know is how people like to hate on Jews. I can't help but notice the parallel here. Everyone is hating on health sci when the truth is that, just as the Jewish winners of the Nobel prize deserve them, us health scis deserve our grades. http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html and http://www.ish itech.co.il/1204ar3.htm

[discworldheavylight]

I'm a bit obsessed with running. I have this running calendar with inspirational quotes from influential running types (I know, it was a gift). One month has a blurb from a man who says he runs because he is a child, an animal, a spirit and a saint. He also lists his occupation as "cardiologist, philosopher and poet". Every time I see it, I roll my eyes at how seriously some people take themselves.

 

I think comparing the negative feelings regarding Health Scis to any lingering hostility that may still exist towards Jewish individuals warrants such a response.

 

I don't mean to be rude, but come on.

 

I think 2011 meant it satirically.

[mattg]

I would expect you to find it hard to believe given that you, and so many others, seem to find it so easy to believe that health sci is some magical panacea of grades and a bastion of undeserved high grades. The issue here seems to be in the way many health sci courses are graded. i.e. the idea that "difficulty" is being defined in terms of the quantity and quality of factual materials that can be memorized and regurgitated on examinations and the idea that a grade should reflect how well someone deals with that difficulty. Health sci is more concerned with the process involved rather than the final result itself. Whereas a non-health sci course may grade you on say a written paper, a midterm, and a final exam, looking at those components in terms of the end product (and sometimes at intermediate stages), a health sci course would involve you being graded on the process itself. I don't think that doing so makes grades easier to come-by for all people. Rather, is is a different way of assigning grades and it certainly isn't unfair, especially when one considers that all academic programs have differences in how they assign grades.

 

I wouldn't say that the grading is "unfair", in the absolute sense of the word. All everyone is saying is that, there is a notable, significant difference in the way health sci students are marked (as you noted yourself), and there is a correlative very significant increase in class/program averages... I guess we will never know if the relationship is truly causal, but there is a lot of evidence supporting it...

 

I acknowledge that your points suggesting why health science class averages are higher are valid, and the fact that (I will admit) there are a significant number of sub-par students in the normal science faculties definitely accounts for SOME of the discrepancy... though I still think that the Provost stat (48 health scis from a small faculty vs. 3 science students from a massive faculty) speaks large volumes as well... even if we assume the health sci faculty (i dunno what it is... 500?) is made up of 100% gunners, you really don't think the faculty of science has many more, in a faculty of i believe 5000+ (legit gunners... as there are many people "gunning" for med school, who don't really have a shot)... and yes, health sci students are selecting for, but I can guarantee you that there are plenty of science students that had a 90+% average in high school......with that in mind, you really think that out of the entire faculty of science at mcmaster, no more than 3 students would get a 4.0 average if they were in the faculty of health science? and on the flip side, if the faculty of health science disbanded and all of their students were put into the science program, the number of provost students would increase by 2500%? the answer is no... yes, the academic quality of the individuals is a definite confounding factor in comparing program averages, but when considered at the individual level (ie . only looking at students with perfect grades), there has to be another factor... the most simple answer (occam's razor), as well as what I can say subjectively, having taken many courses from both faculties, is there is a large discrepancy in the marking... you noted yourself that there is a difference objectively... well there is also one subjectively...

 

even if the numbers were more along the lines of health sci students making up 10% of the Provost honour roll, despite the small faculty... I would admit, yes, this can be due to them being selected for high academic aptitude, being hard workers, and helping each other (although I'm not convinced on that one being much of a factor)... but even 10% would be pushing it to base the discepancy SOLELY on individual aptitude... but 85%... lol, c'mon...

 

Finally, I want to make a comment about your statement that "85% of the Provost honour roll is made up of health sci students, while they only make up <1% of the university "

 

I see an interesting parallel here. The Jewish people make-up <1% of the population of the entire planet, yet approx 20% of the Nobel prize winners are members of the Jewish people! I have Jewish friends and one thing I know is how people like to hate on Jews. I can't help but notice the parallel here. Everyone is hating on health sci when the truth is that, just as the Jewish winners of the Nobel prize deserve them, us health scis deserve our grades. http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html and http://www.ish itech.co.il/1204ar3.htm

 

as per the Jewish nobel laureates lol... you can't consider "the population of the entire planet" to determine your jewish %, and then go on to talk about nobel prizes... that is equivalent to me saying "health sci students make up 0.000000001% of the entire planet, yet they make up 85% of the provost honour roll"... no, because the entire planet isn't eligible for the provost honour roll, just as they are not eligible for the nobel prize... if you just consider the academic community (ie. people around the world with PhD's), i'm sure Jewish people make up a much larger percentage (this is a COMPLETE guess, but i will say 10%, just for the sake of arguement... which i'm pretty sure would be an underestimate)... THEN you can compare whatever percentage that is to the 20% that make up nobel laureates... and in that case, yes, I would say any remaining discrepancy is probably due to some inherent factor of Jewish people, although my guess would be there wouldn't be much of a discrepancy... and unlike health science, there is no potentially biasing factor (other than perhaps the committee being racist lol, which I doubt), like the subjectivity of marks (which, keep in mind, the university has invested interest for health sci students to do very well academically, secure the max number of med school spots they can, and thus sustain the program's very elite status)............... so with all of that in mind, no I don't think the MASSIVE discrepancy (<1% of the university, yet 85% of the provost honour roll), is solely, or even primarily, due to to the individuals themselves

 

ps. i have no harsh feelings towards health scis... i do well myself... i just enjoy debating the topic, and don't like how most health scis adamantly deny ANY form of grade inflation (although many will admit it lol)

[2011hope]

as per the Jewish nobel laureates lol... you can't consider "the population of the entire planet" to determine your jewish %, and then go on to talk about nobel prizes... that is equivalent to me saying "health sci students make up 0.000000001% of the entire planet, yet they make up 85% of the provost honour roll"... no, because the entire planet isn't eligible for the provost honour roll, just as they are not eligible for the nobel prize... if you just consider the academic community (ie. people around the world with PhD's), i'm sure Jewish people make up a much larger percentage (this is a COMPLETE guess, but i will say 10%, just for the sake of arguement... which i'm pretty sure would be an underestimate)... THEN you can compare whatever percentage that is to the 20% that make up nobel laureates... and in that case, yes, I would say any remaining discrepancy is probably due to some inherent factor of Jewish people, although my guess would be there wouldn't be much of a discrepancy... and unlike health science, there is no potentially biasing factor (other than perhaps the committee being racist lol, which I doubt), like the subjectivity of marks (which, keep in mind, the university has invested interest for health sci students to do very well academically, secure the max number of med school spots they can, and thus sustain the program's very elite status)............... so with all of that in mind, no I don't think the MASSIVE discrepancy (<1% of the university, yet 85% of the provost honour roll), is solely, or even primarily, due to to the individuals themselves

 

You missed my point, or perhaps I did not present it well so please allow me to clarify. I was not making a direct comparison of the numbers involved (in which you are correct about how the sampling should be done). Rather I was pointing out that people tend to hate on health scis for our successes despite our small relative numbers because of our relatively large presence in med schools and in high gpas in contrast to our small numbers, that is where I see the parallel. In both situations you have a small group of people with a disproportionate number of accomplishments. Just as you pointed out, Jewish people are, to begin with, found in higher numbers in academia than would be expected by their sheer numbers in the world. That is, there are probably far more Christians or far more Hindus or far more Muslims o far more of most people in academia than there are Jewish people but their numbers among Nobel prize winners seem to be more proportionate. I used the Jewish example because I thought it was a clear way to get the point across, though obviously not a direct analogy. And, of course, I mean no disrespect to Jewish people or any other peoples. Health sci is a small group of people with accomplishments that, as you pointed out, are disproportionate to their size, I was just pointing out that this is not an unparalled phenomenon and I used the Jewish example because I thought it was clear.