Mac Health Sci

[ChicoMaki]

What would you like me to argue? I'm in 4th year, never had a 4.0 avg, took real electives unlike some of my classmates and you elegant post above certainaly carries strength. and while it does account for only one year (Aside from that one year, there has rarely been above 20 students on the Provost's list at McMaster.

 

But please enlighten us as to what we can debate with you as you have outlined the issue above but I now ask where do you take this information and arguement? Deans? Adcoms? I'm genuinely interested as I'm graduating this year and more than happy to leave the program after about 1.5 years of BS from classmates taking courses like gemstones, water, natural disasters, etc.

[hopeforthebest]

I suggest everyone just avoids this whole problem and does their undergrad out east at a small school. With 3rd and 4th year classes of 4-10 people, it's easy to get an A and the profs generally don't care about class averages because it is hard to have a realistic average with such small classes.

 

I don't have any data to back this up though, unfortunately.

[mattg]

What would you like me to argue? I'm in 4th year, never had a 4.0 avg, took real electives unlike some of my classmates and you elegant post above certainaly carries strength. and while it does account for only one year (Aside from that one year, there has rarely been above 20 students on the Provost's list at McMaster.

 

But please enlighten us as to what we can debate with you as you have outlined the issue above but I now ask where do you take this information and arguement? Deans? Adcoms? I'm genuinely interested as I'm graduating this year and more than happy to leave the program after about 1.5 years of BS from classmates taking courses like gemstones, water, natural disasters, etc.

 

i'm not sure about previous years, but i doubt this was the first year where there were more than 20 people on the provost honour roll... i know that 5 years ago it was around 10, and has been increasing each year, so i'm guessing the Provost has had 20+ for the past 4 years or so (just a guess though)

 

I commend you for taking legitimate electives... I know that some health sci students do, and that's respectable... but I know that a ton use all of their electives of classes like natural disasters, gemstones, water, pop music, nutrition, etc... whenever there is a bird course, you can be sure to find a ton of health sci's... but that's besides the point, because a ton of premeds in general take bird courses...

 

there is nothing you can really debate - that was my point... in the argument me, and others, have outlined, there is no legitimate argument that can be made... there is tons of evidence - both objective and subjective - that proves marking in the health sci program is extremely disproportionate with respect to all other programs... massive grade inflation... it can't be legitimately denied... but we all know it still will be, by health sci's saying "you're just jealous, we're all smart, i work hard to earn my marks, etc etc"... while most are smart, and do work hard, it doesn't change the fact that the marks are inflated

 

i don't think you can really take this info and argument anywhere... the faculty at mcmaster obviously knows about it... i'm sure adcom's know about it - not sure to what degree they know about it... maybe if they had the actual numbers something would change, but i doubt it... it's just annoying how their gpa's go into the applicant pool, and hugely contribute to the growing notion in canadian med applications that a 3.9 is common and not that great

[mattg]

I suggest everyone just avoids this whole problem and does their undergrad out east at a small school. With 3rd and 4th year classes of 4-10 people, it's easy to get an A and the profs generally don't care about class averages because it is hard to have a realistic average with such small classes.

 

I don't have any data to back this up though, unfortunately.

 

i'm sure most people wouldn't prefer doing their undergrad at some OOP school, out in newfoundland, away from all friends and family, just so they can get marks to rival the inflated health sci program... I'd say just do it at an *easier* school here, and just work hard

[hopeforthebest]

i'm sure most people wouldn't prefer doing their undergrad at some OOP school, out in newfoundland, away from all friends and family, just so they can get marks to rival the inflated health sci program... I'd say just do it at an *easier* school here, and just work hard

 

Well, I was largely joking. But I definitely do not think that getting high marks is the reason most people come out east. I went to University away from home to make friends and leave the highschool atmosphere behind. Most of my friends who remained at home never really branched out to meet new people. It's just a totally different mindset, I guess. I've made my choice and have loved every minute of it. Plus, being at a small school may have its disadvantages in terms of big research money, but I went to a big school for my honours thesis summer research anyway, and being at a small school gave me tons of opportunities because there just wasn't that much competition for them. If you're a big fish you can definitely clean up.

 

Sorry for being completely off topic - I just like to take the opportunity to plug the maritimes

[ChicoMaki]

i'm not sure about previous years, but i doubt this was the first year where there were more than 20 people on the provost honour roll... i know that 5 years ago it was around 10, and has been increasing each year, so i'm guessing the Provost has had 20+ for the past 4 years or so (just a guess though)

 

I commend you for taking legitimate electives... I know that some health sci students do, and that's respectable... but I know that a ton use all of their electives of classes like natural disasters, gemstones, water, pop music, nutrition, etc... whenever there is a bird course, you can be sure to find a ton of health sci's... but that's besides the point, because a ton of premeds in general take bird courses...

 

there is nothing you can really debate - that was my point... in the argument me, and others, have outlined, there is no legitimate argument that can be made... there is tons of evidence - both objective and subjective - that proves marking in the health sci program is extremely disproportionate with respect to all other programs... massive grade inflation... it can't be legitimately denied... but we all know it still will be, by health sci's saying "you're just jealous, we're all smart, i work hard to earn my marks, etc etc"... while most are smart, and do work hard, it doesn't change the fact that the marks are inflated

 

i don't think you can really take this info and argument anywhere... the faculty at mcmaster obviously knows about it... i'm sure adcom's know about it - not sure to what degree they know about it... maybe if they had the actual numbers something would change, but i doubt it... it's just annoying how their gpa's go into the applicant pool, and hugely contribute to the growing notion in canadian med applications that a 3.9 is common and not that great

 

And I would agree. As much as I hate to say it, perhaps shifting more emphasis on standardized testing (like the US has to combat the huge # of schools and variance of marks) would make more sense. But that'll never happen as the ADCOMs here in Canada are very resistant to changing their policy.

[Cyradis]

Most of the stuff on this forum serves to help someone - be it with how to approach an interview, or just knowledge about the interview/application process... etc.

 

What purpose does this one serve?

 

If Healthsci marks ARE inflated - and you can prove it beyond any reasonable doubt - then take your data/"proof" to the ADCOMs. No one here can help you, and all you're doing is pissing off many of your potential future classmates/colleagues in medicine (and garnering the respect of a few healthsci-haters I suppose).

 

If they AREN'T inflated, then it's the exact same result - you're still pissing off a bunch of potential future classmates/colleagues (except minus the ADCOMs committee).

 

So... someone tell me, what are you trying to prove? What are you trying to accomplish?

 

Let's get back to HELPING each other with interview prep/thoughts/information about the interviews.

 

*Random PS* - I'm not even sure why I'm posting here =P I think I've just seen too many of these arguments.

[mattg]

i'm sure you can find hundreds of threads on this site more unrelated to premed/med school than this... if someone doesn't want to debate this, they can just not read it... the thread title is "Mac Health Sci", and this is what the thread is about... is it going to help anyone? no... so what?... and i can't see why it would genuinely piss people off... if they disagree that's fine... but it's a debate on an internet forum, i don't know why you'd get pissed off... what we are trying to prove is that mac health sci marks are inflated... what we are trying to accomplish? nothing - not to have them punished, just to have it known that their marks are inflated... i doubt they care to be honest lol... i wouldn't

[gibson303]

Disclaimer: Not a Health Sci student. Did Western Med Sci.

 

students entering Health Sci usually need a high school average of 90%+.

 

students also enter other Sci programs with a high school average of 90%+.

 

Chances are the 90%+ average student in the other sci program will do quite well. It is probable to think that a student who gets a 90% average in high school, to likely do quite well in undergrad, given that they are inherently smart or are real hard workers.

 

As we all know, in a Sci program, say Western Med Sci, there will be students who enter with a 90%+ avg but the majority will have averages in the 80s. There is a range of hard workers-slackers, smart ppl-dumb asses in these large science programs (of course the slackers/dumb asses for the most part get weeded out by the end). The hard workers/smart ppl generally speaking will be doing well. If you are someone who gets that 90+ average...GENERALLY speaking it means your either smart or a real hard worker.

 

In Health Sci, however...almost 100% of their students have that 90%+ average. This GENERALLY speaking means that the students are either hard workers or inherently smart. Therefore...one would assume, if they were in med sci, they would also get the higher GPAs. Unlike in Med Sci however, where we have a grade distribution (because there are slackers or dumbasses)...there is less of this in Health Sci. Therefore it makes sense that students in Health Sci for the most part have higher GPAs.

 

I don't see why this is appalling to anyone. Just because there is a greater proportion of smarter students in their program, all of a sudden they should be marked against a higher curve?

 

PPL often cite "engineers", saying there program is harder. They should get extra slack. I don't support this. Med school is competitive. Therefore, to get in you must be competitive. You need a high GPA...figure out how to get that high GPA. Pick the program that will give you the high GPA. Yes...we want to learn what we are passionate about. Well if you want to be in medical school, I presume you are passionate about medicine. And in order to study what you are passionate about in this case that would be medicine, you need to get in first.

[mattg]

dude, you missed everything... you're just comparing averages again... you can't do that... you have to compare a group of people with another group of people who are equally smart/hard-working (ie. did equally well in high school)... the only way you can do this is look at the elite people in each program... you can't compare averages between programs... as you said, most other programs have a wider distribution, whereas health sci is a relatively narrow one... so one would expect their program average is higher... that's not the debate... it's whether their program is inherently easier at marking... it's whether or not, if they had been in science rather than health science, assuming programs of equal difficulty, 48 of them would still get 4.0 (whereas currently, only 3 out of 5000 got 4.0... and i'm sure a good number of those 5000 had 90+% averages and were hard workers in high school)...

[DanG8]

dude, you missed everything... you're just comparing averages again... you can't do that... you have to compare a group of people with another group of people who are equally smart/hard-working (ie. did equally well in high school)... the only way you can do this is look at the elite people in each program... you can't compare averages between programs... as you said, most other programs have a wider distribution, whereas health sci is a relatively narrow one... so one would expect their program average is higher... that's not the debate... it's whether their program is inherently easier at marking... it's whether or not, if they had been in science rather than health science, assuming programs of equal difficulty, 48 of them would still get 4.0 (whereas currently, only 3 out of 5000 got 4.0... and i'm sure a good number of those 5000 had 90+% averages and were hard workers in high school)...

 

I'm sorry that you feel that a faculty of 700 or so students really harms you and your chances to get into med school. But the point about grade inflation has been made, and agreed with countless times (+1ed by me, a current 4th year student). Some courses in HTH SCI, and the ones generally accused of such inflation (i.e. Inquiry I, 4X03), follow a different philosophy and educational style than a general science course. It's a work ethic that you learn to love in the program, you are learning for the sake of learning vs. a grade. Sure in your first year all you want is that 12, and since you're not marked on that 68% curve, it's more likely you will pull off a >10. But now as a fourth year, I've reflected and realized that I took more away from courses where there has been more focus on the learning, rather than a grade (i.e. Inquiry II, Communications, Pathophysiology). In some of those courses, my group and I never got a grade back until the final grades were posted at the end of the term. But that has been said already before somewhere in this monster of a post. The program is different, and it harms you in some way, so you respond by blaming it.

 

Sure, a couple of inflated As or A+s in a few courses might effect your chances of getting into med school (however small a disadvantage that may be), and I'm sure that's why you and others are "debating" the issue here. But it's a moot point--there's nothing you can do about it by sitting here as a keyboard warrior on some internet forum. You can bring awareness to the issue, but what good will that do? It's like bringing awareness that the sky isn't always blue, it's sometimes gray. The discussion has been done and done, and confirmed. Does grade inflation (a course average >10) happen in health sci? Some courses, yep. Some courses, heck no (see Inquiry II). Does it really affect your (a student not in HTH SCIs) chances of getting into medicine? I don't know. I don't think so.

 

Maybe a more constructive discussion (since you're not looking to take your problems to Adcoms or Deans) would be why you believe it affects the medical admission system and your chances? How much does a GPA really matter? Why is it so difficult in Ontario?

 

I'm sure all of the answers to these questions won't be health sci.

[mattg]

I personally don't think it really affects my or others' chance of getting into meds much - I never really thought that. The discussion has been done and done, but hasn't been confirmed... it's still pretty widely denied... but yea, i think i'm done with the thread now:) ... despite what some people probably think, some people just enjoy to debate/argue lol... i'm not angry or anything, i do well myself... the one thing that is slightly annoying, is the value of a 4.0 at Mac is slightly devalued, but whatever... main reason for debating it over the past few days was just because i've seen so much denial of the question on this site, and figured i'd get into it (because a lot of the people i've seen debating it have done a pretty poor job lol... too many holes to be poked in their arguments)

[gibson303]

dude, you missed everything... you're just comparing averages again... you can't do that... you have to compare a group of people with another group of people who are equally smart/hard-working (ie. did equally well in high school)... the only way you can do this is look at the elite people in each program... you can't compare averages between programs... as you said, most other programs have a wider distribution, whereas health sci is a relatively narrow one... so one would expect their program average is higher... that's not the debate... it's whether their program is inherently easier at marking... it's whether or not, if they had been in science rather than health science, assuming programs of equal difficulty, 48 of them would still get 4.0 (whereas currently, only 3 out of 5000 got 4.0... and i'm sure a good number of those 5000 had 90+% averages and were hard workers in high school)...

 

no I didn't I missed the point at all. I don't know where you get this 3 out of 5000 gets a 4.0 number from, I certainly knew more than 5 med sci students who had a 4.0. REGARDLESS...my point is, the fact that they may be marked "easier" (if this is even true...from what I understand their way of assessment is completely different) seems JUSTIFIED, given that the entire class generally speaking are hard workers and smart ppl. You don't think UofT adcoms are aware that a disproportionate number of Health Sci students have higher GPAs than other sci students? Yet this does not prevent Health Sci students from getting into U of T meds.

 

again, I have no reason to backup Health Sci, I had nothing to do with it...and frankly I hate PBL lol. I just felt like I needed to add my two cents towards your crusade against health sciences.

[supafield]

What I don't get is the reason to do it here.

 

Whether you love or hate Mac Health Sci, what's the benefit to tearing it up on an internet forum.

 

It's an argument for the sake of an argument.

 

If you truly believe the program is unfair to other university students applying to medicine, then take the issues to the adcom's themselves, or the Mac Health Sci administration rather than whining about it here.

 

There are multiple threads on the topic, and even in the impossible scenario that we all agreed that Mac Health Sci inflated G.P.A.'s unreasonably, it will still have accomplished nothing.

[mattg]

no I didn't I missed the point at all. I don't know where you get this 3 out of 5000 gets a 4.0 number from, I certainly knew more than 5 med sci students who had a 4.0. REGARDLESS...my point is, the fact that they may be marked "easier" (if this is even true...from what I understand their way of assessment is completely different) seems JUSTIFIED, given that the entire class generally speaking are hard workers and smart ppl. You don't think UofT adcoms are aware that a disproportionate number of Health Sci students have higher GPAs than other sci students? Yet this does not prevent Health Sci students from getting into U of T meds.

 

again, I have no reason to backup Health Sci, I had nothing to do with it...and frankly I hate PBL lol. I just felt like I needed to add my two cents towards your crusade against health sciences.

 

the 3 / 5000 is from the faculty of science at mac... not sure what med sci is... western?

[DanG8]

I personally don't think it really affects my or others' chance of getting into meds much - I never really thought that. The discussion has been done and done, but hasn't been confirmed... it's still pretty widely denied... but yea, i think i'm done with the thread now:) ... despite what some people probably think, some people just enjoy to debate/argue lol... i'm not angry or anything, i do well myself... the one thing that is slightly annoying, is the value of a 4.0 at Mac is slightly devalued, but whatever... main reason for debating it over the past few days was just because i've seen so much denial of the question on this site, and figured i'd get into it (because a lot of the people i've seen debating it have done a pretty poor job lol... too many holes to be poked in their arguments)

 

this type of discussion/debate does hold merit. It lets me as a HTH SCI see what other's perceptions are of me and my faculty, and let's me share my point of view with them. Without that type of exchange, that conflict will never be well resolved.

 

I think the one thing we can all agree on though, is the fact that we need to get through these stereotypes and misconceptions (or denials). Since we will all be working with eachother in the near future. To use a comparison, it's like not trusting that UofT student because you heard some of them removed pins on the anatomy bellringer. Or ripped pages from the chem textbook in the library a few days before the midterm. I'd hate to be singled out because of those (mis)conceptions.

[pikachu]

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

 

I don't want to get into disputing the overarching point, since there are definitely courses in health sci that aren't exactly difficult to get 12s in. My main point is that 1 year of data and complete assumptions about the number of high achievers entering science isn't the most sound basis of an argument.

 

Since, your data is comparing 1 year of award recipients, 3 4.0 science students could be abnormally low (Getting 4.0s generally requires a bit of luck with TAs/profs). For example, in 2005-06, there were 11 science students on the provost's honor roll at mac (15 in health sci, 39 total). In 07-08, there were 7 science students, 38 health scis, and 53 total - so 5.4x more hth sci 4.0s, still pretty significant but definitely not as jarring as 16x. (Or maybe science is just getting tougher, while hth sci gets easier )

 

Also some concrete data about the students entering the program - in the year one class of 06-07, 154 students were awarded the president's entrance award for having 95+ high school average. 73 of those students entered health sci, only 28 entered science (i.e. 2.8x more 95+ hs students in health sci than science, and almost half of all the 95+ students entering the university).

 

Overall, there is still a difference not explained by the limited numbers you or I have presented and chances are that is in part due to courses hth scis are taking, but i would argue the difference might not be in the courses themselves, but in the structure of the hth sci curriculum. In upper years(3&4), hth scis have 6-7 elective courses each year, which some use to load up on easy courses (both hth sci and non-hth sci). So, while there might be 1 required health sci course in almost every year that is easy to get a 4.0, the ability of hth scis to spread out difficult pre-reqs they need (orgo, etc) and mix them with (presumably) more easy electives than non-hth scis is probably just as big (or bigger) of a reason for the larger number of 4.0s.

 

-pikachu

[sfinch]

I don't want to get into disputing the overarching point, since there are definitely courses in health sci that aren't exactly difficult to get 12s in. My main point is that 1 year of data and complete assumptions about the number of high achievers entering science isn't the most sound basis of an argument.

 

Since, your data is comparing 1 year of award recipients, 3 4.0 science students could be abnormally low (Getting 4.0s generally requires a bit of luck with TAs/profs). For example, in 2005-06, there were 11 science students on the provost's honor roll at mac (15 in health sci, 39 total). In 07-08, there were 7 science students, 38 health scis, and 53 total - so 5.4x more hth sci 4.0s, still pretty significant but definitely not as jarring as 16x. (Or maybe science is just getting tougher, while hth sci gets easier )

 

Also some concrete data about the students entering the program - in the year one class of 06-07, 154 students were awarded the president's entrance award for having 95+ high school average. 73 of those students entered health sci, only 28 entered science (i.e. 2.8x more 95+ hs students in health sci than science, and almost half of all the 95+ students entering the university).

 

Overall, there is still a difference not explained by the limited numbers you or I have presented and chances are that is in part due to courses hth scis are taking, but i would argue the difference might not be in the courses themselves, but in the structure of the hth sci curriculum. In upper years(3&4), hth scis have 6-7 elective courses each year, which some use to load up on easy courses (both hth sci and non-hth sci). So, while there might be 1 required health sci course in almost every year that is easy to get a 4.0, the ability of hth scis to spread out difficult pre-reqs they need (orgo, etc) and mix them with (presumably) more easy electives than non-hth scis is probably just as big (or bigger) of a reason for the larger number of 4.0s.

 

-pikachu

 

Pikachu, the numbers for that single year are large enough to get a p value <0.05 by a long shot. It is statistically significant. Health Sci SEEMS to be getting easier year after year.

 

One last thing pikachu did not mention: Yes, almost 45% of the 95+ entering students at MAC are health sci. But virtually all 'performance' studies in animals and humans show some semblance of regression towards the mean on further performance tests. Let us presume 100 people write a contest. We then take the average rank of the top 10 (would be 5.5). Then have all 100 write again...and the average rank of the top 10 would almost certainly be lower (maybe 7.5). In other words, considering the large number of 90-95 students in non health sci faculties, we would expect maybe only 25-30 % of the 4.0s being health scis, and not 45% (and certainly not 80%!!!).

 

There is sound statistical and mathematical modeling behind this - perhaps a stats major can explain in more simplistic terms to everyone.

[mattg]

I openly stated that my numbers were just working numbers... no matter how you want to spin it, there is going to be a huge significant difference, when individual differences are controlled for, attributable only to program difference... one year of data may not be ideal, but it is so massively significant that it would be absolutely ridiculous to attribute a large part of it to random variation... you would find the same thing if you looked at last year's numbers, or the year before - maybe not AS significant, but still very significant, and as the numbers indicate, there seems to be a trend in both faculties, so I'm not sure how applicable going back 3+ years would be... and as per the high school numbers... firstly, you have to consider what sfinch does... it is unlikely there is much of a difference between someone who gets a 96% and a 93% in high school, intelligence/hard-work wise (there is definitely variation between schools)... however, there will be a definite difference between their chances at matriculating into health sci... so that will skew your numbers when considering 95+% high school students... I would say you have to look at students who had a 90+% in high school... if you looked at the Provost honour roll, I'm sure there would be just as many, if not more people on it who had less than a 95% in high school... so your data would be biased in that way, towards health sci students, due to the steep gradient, if you just consider 95+% high school people... nevertheless, I believe in my original argument I even accounted for the fact that say they were 2x, or even 4x as many "Provost-capable" health science students than science students, despite the difference in overall faculty... if you want to denote Provost-capable as 95+%, fine (even though this is not very valid)... then say there are 3x more provost-capable ppl in health sci vs. science (even though this is 3 years old, and with high school mark inflation increasing each year, I'm sure the non-health sci 95+%'ers are growing each year)... how does 3x more provost-capable people translate to 16x more provost? or even if you don't want to call it 16... even if you want to call it 6x like the previous year (even though there is a pretty clear trend in the data you presented... health sci 4.0's are increasing, science 4.0's are decreasing)... the difference is still significant... and as I mentioned, 95+% is not a good marker of Provost-capable... 90+% would probably be more accurate, in which case you would no longer be looking at a 3:1 health sci:science ratio (or whatever it is now, probably more along the lines of 2:1 or 1:1) - it would probably become a 5:1 science to health science ratio... 95%'ers are disproportionately represented in health science, yes, but a 95%'er from high school is probably not significantly more likely to get a 4.0 in university than a 91 or 92 or 93%'er... and there is a clear trend, so I'm sure last year's numbers aren't far off what they are going to be this year... I guarantee at the very least, this year's numbers will be closer to the 08/09 stats I presented than the 06/07 stats you were mentioning...

 

the numbers I presented in my argument are by no means exact... but the difference is so extremely significant, that it doesn't change much... to be honest, it is ridiculous to argue in light of the reality of the stats... 5 years ago (was health sci even around then? not sure) you may have had an argument... but not anymore, and it keeps getting worse each year, as you indicated

 

I don't want to get into disputing the overarching point, since there are definitely courses in health sci that aren't exactly difficult to get 12s in. My main point is that 1 year of data and complete assumptions about the number of high achievers entering science isn't the most sound basis of an argument.

 

Since, your data is comparing 1 year of award recipients, 3 4.0 science students could be abnormally low (Getting 4.0s generally requires a bit of luck with TAs/profs). For example, in 2005-06, there were 11 science students on the provost's honor roll at mac (15 in health sci, 39 total). In 07-08, there were 7 science students, 38 health scis, and 53 total - so 5.4x more hth sci 4.0s, still pretty significant but definitely not as jarring as 16x. (Or maybe science is just getting tougher, while hth sci gets easier )

 

Also some concrete data about the students entering the program - in the year one class of 06-07, 154 students were awarded the president's entrance award for having 95+ high school average. 73 of those students entered health sci, only 28 entered science (i.e. 2.8x more 95+ hs students in health sci than science, and almost half of all the 95+ students entering the university).

 

Overall, there is still a difference not explained by the limited numbers you or I have presented and chances are that is in part due to courses hth scis are taking, but i would argue the difference might not be in the courses themselves, but in the structure of the hth sci curriculum. In upper years(3&4), hth scis have 6-7 elective courses each year, which some use to load up on easy courses (both hth sci and non-hth sci). So, while there might be 1 required health sci course in almost every year that is easy to get a 4.0, the ability of hth scis to spread out difficult pre-reqs they need (orgo, etc) and mix them with (presumably) more easy electives than non-hth scis is probably just as big (or bigger) of a reason for the larger number of 4.0s.

 

-pikachu

[Jasx]

Pikachu, the numbers for that single year are large enough to get a p value <0.05 by a long shot. It is statistically significant. Health Sci SEEMS to be getting easier year after year.

 

no matter how you want to spin it, there is going to be a huge significant difference, when individual differences are controlled for, attributable only to program difference...

 

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.

 

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.

 

One last thing pikachu did not mention: Yes, almost 45% of the 95+ entering students at MAC are health sci. But virtually all 'performance' studies in animals and humans show some semblance of regression towards the mean on further performance tests. Let us presume 100 people write a contest. We then take the average rank of the top 10 (would be 5.5). Then have all 100 write again...and the average rank of the top 10 would almost certainly be lower (maybe 7.5).

 

What you said only makes sense if your undergrad program is absolutely nothing and offers no value. Through my courses and working with others in undergrad, I've gained skills, developed attributes, reflected on my weaknesses, and found ways to address them. I would like to think the point of an undergrad education is to make the group of people perform even better, and I certainly wouldn't be expecting the performance of students to go any lower!

[infomeddude]

LOL, I love how people are responding to the name pikachu seriously.. especially sfinch

 

"Pikachu, you have it all wrong"

 

Sorry, but just seeing the name there and thinking of the pokemon makes me laugh

 

I guess pokemon like mac health sci..

[pikachu]

LOL, I love how people are responding to the name pikachu seriously.. especially sfinch

 

"Pikachu, you have it all wrong"

 

Sorry, but just seeing the name there and thinking of the pokemon makes me laugh

 

I guess pokemon like mac health sci..

 

How dare you attempt to undermine my authority.

[infomeddude]

How dare you attempt to undermine my authority.

 

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

[ChexMix]

LOL, I love how people are responding to the name pikachu seriously.. especially sfinch

 

"Pikachu, you have it all wrong"

 

Sorry, but just seeing the name there and thinking of the pokemon makes me laugh

 

I guess pokemon like mac health sci..

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL QFW

[pikachu]

Pikachu, the numbers for that single year are large enough to get a p value <0.05 by a long shot. It is statistically significant. Health Sci SEEMS to be getting easier year after year.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...