mattg Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 well, okay, if you wanted to demonstrate an analogy between Jewish people hated on for representing a large portion of nobel laureates, and health scis being hated on for succeeding disproportionately as well lol... but you can't ignore the numbers... if you do factor in Jewish proportion of the scientific community, I don't know why people would hate on them... i don't know that they do... if they do, perhaps they are interpreting the numbers the same way I did from your statement... the <1% of the planet vs. 20% of nobel prize winners... but IN REALITY, there is likely not a great discrepancy in the numbers........ whereas in health science, there is still that massive discrepancy... the overall proportion really IS 1%, and the Provost proportion is 85%..... so i don't really see the parallel, once you consider the numbers... you have Jews, apparently being hated on (didn't know that), which if so, is based on faulty information... vs. health scis, being hated on, but based on real facts... you have on group apparently being hated on based on a misperception... and other group being hated on for a similar reason, yes (I suppose this was the parallel?), but based on objective numbers and subjective comparisons also, how would you respond to the first half of my post? that's really what I base my personal thoughts on... the second half was just questioning the validity of your Jewish nobel laureates comment in the context of the debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borborygmi Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 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. I know very little (next to nothing) about the health sci program, other than general course curriculum; however, I recently viewed the graduate stats going back 3 years for the health sci program. I was pretty blown away at the statistics for acceptances in the medical and other related professional programs which all would require substantial gpa's (with rare exception). So, just based on this hard evidence, I find it very hard to believe what you're saying. Essentially, at least 80% of your graduating class seems to have gpa's >= 3.85 in order to gain admission to the programs that people are entering post-grad and in the amount of 70-80% of the graduating class. I'd be interested to see a copy of class averages for all of your courses to substantiate actually. Aside... NOT considering the huge grade inflation generally seen in Ontario high schools, there's a major sample bias here anyways. If you're required to have 95%+ averages to be considered for admission (pretty much) and a solid application, you have to admit that these are very above average individuals academically in the first place. I would expect students in this program to be strong. I can't comment on the actual earning of grades though since I have no intimate details of how people are evaluated in the program. 243508208457char. That was fairly rambly, but i've had ~6 hours of sleep over 3 days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2011hope Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 well, okay, if you wanted to demonstrate an analogy between Jewish people hated on for representing a large portion of nobel laureates, and health scis being hated on for succeeding disproportionately as well lol... but you can't ignore the numbers... if you do factor in Jewish proportion of the scientific community, I don't know why people would hate on them... i don't know that they do... if they do, perhaps they are interpreting the numbers the same way I did from your statement... the <1% of the planet vs. 20% of nobel prize winners... but IN REALITY, there is likely not a great discrepancy in the numbers........ whereas in health science, there is still that massive discrepancy... the overall proportion really IS 1%, and the Provost proportion is 85%..... so i don't really see the parallel, once you consider the numbers... you have Jews, apparently being hated on (didn't know that), which if so, is based on faulty information... vs. health scis, being hated on, but based on real facts... you have on group apparently being hated on based on a misperception... and other group being hated on for a similar reason, yes (I suppose this was the parallel?), but based on objective numbers and subjective comparisons also, how would you respond to the first half of my post? that's really what I base my personal thoughts on... the second half was just questioning the validity of your Jewish nobel laureates comment in the context of the debate oh boy. You are missing the point entirely. I give up. everyone is entitled to believe as they please anyway. Yes, it's all true, health sci inflates grades, we get A+ grades just for showing up. Sometimes, when we are really good and everyone shows up on time the easter bunny comes with presents from santa claus and we open them while we sit around a fire and Elvis (you didn't really think he was dead, didya?) tells us stories. lol. Now, if u will excuse me, I must return to my satanic worship ceremony so that i can harvest the power of the mortal ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattg Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 oh boy. You are missing the point entirely. I give up. everyone is entitled to believe as they please anyway. Yes, it's all true, health sci inflates grades, we get A+ grades just for showing up. Sometimes, when we are really good and everyone shows up on time the easter bunny comes with presents from santa claus and we open them while we sit around a fire and Elvis (you didn't really think he was dead, didya?) tells us stories. lol. Now, if u will excuse me, I must return to my satanic worship ceremony so that i can harvest the power of the mortal ones. lol sorry if i'm misinterpreting your parallel with the Jewish thing... but who cares? that wasn't even in support of your argument... that was apparently just drawing a parallel... how do you address the points I actually made, not related to the whole Jewish nobel laureate thing? don't just back out of the debate lol yea, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but I'm not just making things up... I'm debating the topic using logic, rebutting your statements, as you do in a debate... I presented coherent, logical argument, which you have yet to address... you got onto the whole Jewish thing, which I apparently misinterpreted, but it wasn't really "supportive" of your argument, whether it was a good parallel or not... it was just a parallel (ie. unrelated)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2011hope Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 how do you address the points I actually made, Obviously, we are just that awesome, it's like we say during welcome week "1. we are from health sci, 2. u wanna be me, 3. too bad, 4. more more more" Now, I gtg before Elvis throws a hissy fit and shoots another tv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattg Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 Obviously, we are just that awesome, it's like we say during welcome week "1. we are from health sci, 2. u wanna be me, 3. too bad, 4. more more more" Now, I gtg before Elvis throws a hissy fit and shoots another tv. wow, just a blatant withdrawal from a debate using sarcasm/humour... lol, ok... well, if you want to try to address that whole first part of what I said... I enjoy debating the topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyradis Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 I just wanted to say this entire thread greatly amuses me =) Ah, memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vick001 Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 This thread is stupid.. I mean has any of these Mac health sci haters taken a moment to think? The amount of time people spend complaining about how easy mac health sci is can be focused on improving there own gpa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemesis Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 This thread is stupid... +1 This thread doesn't really contribute anything of value to this subforum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt.pepper Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 I don't know why we bother arguing here. If a health person came out and said something to me and put my program down. I would argue or just say s/he is ignorant. Can we all stop bickering and just agree that York is the way to go if you want to get into med. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinch Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 Let us be clear on some issues. There are more 4.0s in little Health Sci at MAC than all of the University of Toronto (Canada's largest and internationally most prestigious university). There are more 4.0s in little Health Sci at MAC than every university in British Columbia Little Health Scie is >80% of all 4.0s at MAC. Prior to Health Scie, MAC had 4-8 4.0s in a year - this was 10 years ago. Now there are in excess of 60 per year at MAC. Notice a trend? Notice inflated marks given out to students that, while above average, would never get the marks they do in such quantity if in a regular science or arts program? Health Sci students would like to claim that they are more smart deserving people in their little program than exist in every province west of Ontario. Health Sci students would like to claim that engineering students and the top UofT students work less hard than them and deserving of their low marks. That is why many of us really dislike health sciences. Their marks are granted to them simply for being in health sciences (as long as they do the basic work). The students are not better medical students by any means. They make fine medical students, but so would thousands of people rejected because they took programs that are more selective in handing out their 4.0s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt.pepper Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 Let us be clear on some issues. There are more 4.0s in little Health Sci at MAC than all of the University of Toronto (Canada's largest and internationally most prestigious university). There are more 4.0s in little Health Sci at MAC than every university in British Columbia Little Health Scie is >80% of all 4.0s at MAC. Prior to Health Scie, MAC had 4-8 4.0s in a year - this was 10 years ago. Now there are in excess of 60 per year at MAC. Notice a trend? Notice inflated marks given out to students that, while above average, would never get the marks they do in such quantity if in a regular science or arts program? Health Sci students would like to claim that they are more smart deserving people in their little program than exist in every province west of Ontario. Health Sci students would like to claim that engineering students and the top UofT students work less hard than them and deserving of their low marks. That is why many of us really dislike health sciences. Their marks are granted to them simply for being in health sciences (as long as they do the basic work). The students are not better medical students by any means. They make fine medical students, but so would thousands of people rejected because they took programs that are more selective in handing out their 4.0s. Checkmate. Can you find me these stats though? so i can show my friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panda__eyes Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 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... Of course, I'm merely pointing out the fact that Vic One shouldn't be used as an appropriate comparison to Mac Health Sci. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattg Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 yea, exactly what i was saying, i completely agree the 4.0 stat is by far the most telling... program averages and the like have many confounding factors, as they inherently consider the masses, and so this is where health sci students selectively mention certain things and put forth hugely flawed arguments... 4.0's are at the individual level, and at the elite individual level, and so the astronomical discrepancy in 4.0's handed out to health sci's can either be accounted for by (1) something inherent in the individuals (ie. the program is just filled with geniuses and/or flawless students and/or extremely hard workers, whereas all other programs have only a couple despite having many more people)... or (2) it is easier to get high marks (ie. 4.0) in health sci... it has to be one or the other (well, it is really a combination - they are smart, but it is much easier to do well)... health sci students discount (2) completely, essentially eluding to the idea that the small program have more flawless students than (I would guess) the combination of Mac, UofT, Queens, Western (at least - but just a guess) massive science faculties combined... it is arrogant, and annoying... do some of them deserve a 4.0? probably some... do 50 out of a few hundred? lol, that's a joke to even answer i brought forward this Provost 4.0 stat a month or so ago... and among the endless health science debating:p , i have yet to hear anyone address it... please, someone in health sci, address it... stop comparing faculty's entire student body, because yes, on average, health sciences are much more academically inclined that most science faculties... you need a 90% to get in, whereas many others require a B/A-... but when a small faculty earns four times more 4.0's than the rest of the entire university, and probably more than every single other school's entire university student body... it's not hard to do the math lol Let us be clear on some issues. There are more 4.0s in little Health Sci at MAC than all of the University of Toronto (Canada's largest and internationally most prestigious university). There are more 4.0s in little Health Sci at MAC than every university in British Columbia Little Health Scie is >80% of all 4.0s at MAC. Prior to Health Scie, MAC had 4-8 4.0s in a year - this was 10 years ago. Now there are in excess of 60 per year at MAC. Notice a trend? Notice inflated marks given out to students that, while above average, would never get the marks they do in such quantity if in a regular science or arts program? Health Sci students would like to claim that they are more smart deserving people in their little program than exist in every province west of Ontario. Health Sci students would like to claim that engineering students and the top UofT students work less hard than them and deserving of their low marks. That is why many of us really dislike health sciences. Their marks are granted to them simply for being in health sciences (as long as they do the basic work). The students are not better medical students by any means. They make fine medical students, but so would thousands of people rejected because they took programs that are more selective in handing out their 4.0s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattg Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 Checkmate. Can you find me these stats though? so i can show my friend I don't know where you can find the stat... but I called in over the summer to ask what the total number of people on the Provost honour roll was, for the competition section of the med school app (to put the achievement into perspective), they said 60 total... i was confused, because I thought it was going to be more along the lines of 10, as sfinch mentioned, it had been in past years... i asked how many were in the faculty of science... they said 3... i asked how many were in health science (assuming they made up a large proportion), they said 48, i believe... to put that into perspective (not that it needs to be - as 48 is already sixteen times 3... even with equal faculty sizes, the selection process alone and resulting "elite" composition of health sci vs. science would not account for that massive discrepancy)... BUT it gets even better... in 2008/09 the faculty of health science (BHsc) was a bit over 700... the faculty of science was 5000 lol... so in science, there is a 4.0 every approx. 1700 students vs. in health science, there is a 4.0 every approx. 14 students... hmmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChexMix Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 I am sensing that ultimately all this rabble-rabble is because some healthscis said something douchey and arrogant at some point in time (maybe in this thread even), and pissed you off. They might have made you think that healthscis are all douchebags who think they work harder than everyone and deserve the grades they get because their program is different and super competitive, or they might have made you believe that all healthscis think they are topshiz and better than everyone else. Please believe me when I say that these individuals do not represent health sciences as a whole. I know they exist in the faculty but I assure you that these individuals are rare and are usually avoided by the rest of the program. Most people in health sciences are very modest, they respect the workload engineers/science students have in first year. And they know that they are given a rare and valuable opportunity in this program to develop their life skills rather than memorize facts and write endless exams. Although many healthscis are driven, they do not think they are smarter or more deserving than other faculties. Don't let a few individuals' actions make you think otherwise. In fact many students I know are afraid to say they are from healthsci purely due to the stigma against the faculty, which is really the result of a few douchebags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattg Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 I agree with that. I've known many health sci students over the years, and most are cool. This isn't supposed to be attacking anyone (not from me at least), it's just debating the relative difficulty of the program. I have not known many health sci students to be very arrogant, but there is a general sense from many of them that it is "made up" that they don't have it easier (mark-wise), when many of us believe they do. It's just a debate. A debate that will probably never end, even though I think the facts are pretty heavily weighted towards one side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mig174 Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 No, the problem is not that Health Scis are arrogant, it's that they don't deserve the marks they get. 4.0 is not reserved for students who just work hard, it's reserved for the top 3% of the class, at LEAST in first & second year. It's not an argument of "we're smart, we work hard, we deserve the marks" because 1) if everyone gets 4.0, it's nearly impossible to tell who's smarter and who worked harder. 2) marks are not awarded based simply on hard work. That's not what university grading is about. It's about separating students based on performance. That's why MCAT gives out percentiles. That's why schools (unlike Mac, of course) put down the averages of every class on the transcript. Performance relative to the mean is what's important. And damn, you Health Scis keep citing your high school performance like it matters without really considering that a) Ontario is widely known for severe grade inflation There is high variability between grading at high schools in Ontario c) Thus, there are tons of people as smart or smarter and as hard working or more hardworking than you are in science programs across Ontario But we are not seeing rates of 20-25% science students across Ontario get 4.0... so why should you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btf1010 Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 ............................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattg Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 Maybe do the math?....48 hth scis out of 700 is just over 6% of the class getting 4.0s. I'll do the math... 48/700 = 7% 3/5000 (science students) = 0.06% 7% / 0.06% = approx. 120 so while I would probably expect the proportion of health science 4.0's to be a bit greater than the proportion of 4.0's in the faculty of science, due to their methods of selection, and the faculty of science greatly varying in quality of students vs. health science being skewed towards "elite" students... I would expect it to be maybe, at absolute most, 10x as much, all else being equal... but in reality, they proportionally "earn" 120x as many 4.0's... chalk that astronomical bias up to the discrepancies in the individuals? and completely ignore the potential bias in marking which (a) has been subjectively noted by many science students who have taken both science and health sci courses and ( would give health sci students (as a whole) a much better chance of getting into med school, of which the faculty has invested interest to maintain its status....... hmm another thing to consider, with regards to comparing intelligence... health sci is a very competitive program to get into... i know that many people with 90+ and 95+ averages from high school get rejected... it depends largely on the supplementary application as well... so for the 200 matriculating health sci students with 90+% high school averages each year, you probably have AT LEAST 200 students entering the science stream (and I say at least... I'm sure it's much more)... additionally, there are the many students with 90+ averages who don't want to do medicine, and go into things like physics, chem, math (faculties generally made up of smart people, many of which I'm sure did just as well as health sci students in high school)..... so, when comparing ABSOLUTE numbers (and all you can really do is compare absolute numbers... since comparing averages brings all of the average and below average students from science into the equation, which don't really exist in health science... and you want to be comparing the health sci's to the smartest science students)... that said, you definitely have at the very least 800 students in the faculty of science (assuming approx. 200 in each year) that got comparable high school marks to health sci students... so you have there a (more or less, believe me, I know this is not exact) sample of 800 health sci students who had 90+ averages in high school, and approx. 800 science students who had 90+ averages in high school (and if you want to argue that number... say it is less... fine, even saying 500, 400, 300.. doesn't change the obvious discrepancies)... general academic aptitude is more or less accounted for... yet the faculty of health science boasts 16x as many 4.0 students... even if you were to say there are only 400 students (definite underestimate) in entire faculty of science who had comparable high school marks to health sci students, program difficulty being considered equal, you would expect approx. 2x as many 4.0's in the faculty of health science... even if you were to additionally say the health sci students have some inherent factor (ie. presumably that is why they got in, and others with similar marks did not) that makes them more able to succeed in university than those who succeeded comparably in high school.. fine then let's say you would expect 4x (at most) as many 4.0's in health science... and even these considerations are not reality... i am just illustrating the fact that even assuming grandiose things, the numbers aren't there for the health sci side of the debate... the absolute number is 16x as many 4.0's in health science and in normal science... that massive discrepancy is unaccountable by individual traits... it is the program... period that is the math Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FifthBusiness Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 I don't get where this notion that Ontario is known for grade inflation comes from. I did my undergrad in a different province and got to see some high school essays of my friends' siblings and they were garbage, yet would always score in the high 90s. In fact, in this province, you were thought of as a moron if your grade 12 average was less than 90. My brother just finished high school in the states, had a 95% average in his senior year, and still was not in the top 1/3rd of his graduating class. Yet, at my high school in Ontario, very few students had a grade 12 average above 90, and I'd like to think we're just as smart as the students from other provinces and the US. If you're citing the research from the sociologist at Western, you have to remember he's only looking at Ontario. Grade inflation is a problem in Ontario but it is everywhere, and from what I've seen, it's not as dramatic in Ontario as it is elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinch Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 Well first you need to cite your stats. Then we can say whether you "pwnt" the program or not. Alastriss...speaking for UBC and UofT - they give graduating students from each faculty the top student a medal from each faculty (I suspect all universities do). Some years, at UofT, it appears only a few people (1-5) obtained a 4.0 over their whole 4 years of university. And at UBC, in some large faculties, no one (though everyone wanting to do meds does take at UBC english, which is notoriously hard to get a 4.0 in and might explain the the non or very rare 4.0s at UBC - even people wiht 95%+ averages have hiccups here - many in health scie at MAC do not). Alastriss...I think queen's also offers a sort of gold medal for the top person in each faculty (i think) - I'm not even sure if that person recieves a 4.0 each year from what I've heard - maybe you can tell me. Anyways...4.0s are VERY rare in any university. I only got a 4.0 in one year (my last year, so it was not even counted in my admission offers) - and I was near the top of my class or at the top almost every year. I don't know a single person with more than 2 4.0 years at UBC - not even sure if such a person exists. At MAC - there are several such people - all basically in health sci. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinch Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 I don't get where this notion that Ontario is known for grade inflation comes from. I did my undergrad in a different province and got to see some high school essays of my friends' siblings and they were garbage, yet would always score in the high 90s. In fact, in this province, you were thought of as a moron if your grade 12 average was less than 90. My brother just finished high school in the states, had a 95% average in his senior year, and still was not in the top 1/3rd of his graduating class. Yet, at my high school in Ontario, very few students had a grade 12 average above 90, and I'd like to think we're just as smart as the students from other provinces and the US. If you're citing the research from the sociologist at Western, you have to remember he's only looking at Ontario. Grade inflation is a problem in Ontario but it is everywhere, and from what I've seen, it's not as dramatic in Ontario as it is elsewhere. McGill and I believe the Alberta schools lower marks in Ontario to compensate for grade inflation after they found that 95% students did about as well as 90% students in other provinces (I'm paraphrasing to make a point). Alberta tempers inflation by standardized exams at the end of grade 12. The data very readily available. The department of sociology at uwo has several professors that have published widely on this. The US high schools scale marks differently - a C is 70-79, a B is 80-89, an A 90-100. The Bell curve is used in most high schools to a set average of 75. Their marks are of course lowered to alpha equivalents when applying to . Canadian schools. In other words, an 85 in the US is a 75 in Canada, and should not be looked at any differently. Different countries have different 'pass percentages' = I believe in England a pass is 40%, and getting over 70% is brutally hard!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinch Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 I'll do the math... 48/700 = 7% 3/5000 (science students) = 0.06% 7% / 0.06% = approx. 120 so while I would probably expect the proportion of health science 4.0's to be a bit greater than the proportion of 4.0's in the faculty of science, due to their methods of selection, and the faculty of science greatly varying in quality of students vs. health science being skewed towards "elite" students... I would expect it to be maybe, at absolute most, 10x as much, all else being equal... but in reality, they proportionally "earn" 120x as many 4.0's... chalk that astronomical bias up to the discrepancies in the individuals? and completely ignore the potential bias in marking which (a) has been subjectively noted by many science students who have taken both science and health sci courses and ( would give health sci students (as a whole) a much better chance of getting into med school, of which the faculty has invested interest to maintain its status....... hmm another thing to consider, with regards to comparing intelligence... health sci is a very competitive program to get into... i know that many people with 90+ and 95+ averages from high school get rejected... it depends largely on the supplementary application as well... so for the 200 matriculating health sci students with 90+% high school averages each year, you probably have AT LEAST 200 students entering the science stream (and I say at least... I'm sure it's much more)... additionally, there are the many students with 90+ averages who don't want to do medicine, and go into things like physics, chem, math (faculties generally made up of smart people, many of which I'm sure did just as well as health sci students in high school)..... so, when comparing ABSOLUTE numbers (and all you can really do is compare absolute numbers... since comparing averages brings all of the average and below average students from science into the equation, which don't really exist in health science... and you want to be comparing the health sci's to the smartest science students)... that said, you definitely have at the very least 800 students in the faculty of science (assuming approx. 200 in each year) that got comparable high school marks to health sci students... so you have there a (more or less, believe me, I know this is not exact) sample of 800 health sci students who had 90+ averages in high school, and approx. 800 science students who had 90+ averages in high school (and if you want to argue that number... say it is less... fine, even saying 500, 400, 300.. doesn't change the obvious discrepancies)... general academic aptitude is more or less accounted for... yet the faculty of health science boasts 16x as many 4.0 students... even if you were to say there are only 400 students (definite underestimate) in entire faculty of science who had comparable high school marks to health sci students, program difficulty being considered equal, you would expect approx. 2x as many 4.0's in the faculty of health science... even if you were to additionally say the health sci students have some inherent factor (ie. presumably that is why they got in, and others with similar marks did not) that makes them more able to succeed in university than those who succeeded comparably in high school.. fine then let's say you would expect 4x (at most) as many 4.0's in health science... and even these considerations are not reality... i am just illustrating the fact that even assuming grandiose things, the numbers aren't there for the health sci side of the debate... the absolute number is 16x as many 4.0's in health science and in normal science... that massive discrepancy is unaccountable by individual traits... it is the program... period that is the math One of the single best posts ever on this site. There is NO WAY a health sci could argue this without being disingenious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattg Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 yea, i've had several posts on this thread that i believe would be very hard to argue... but they are all just ignored lol... health sci debaters just wait for someone to say something stupid that they CAN argue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.