Rumors U of A going back to a Honors Pass Fail system.

[bloh]

and I am arguing that your assumption is misguided. I am not saying rewards only work for mindless repetitive work; I am saying a focus on rewards - the focus comes from competition, which you are so fond of - does not work for things on a higher intellectual level.

 

this is not an argument that defies logic, though it apparently defies your understanding. focussing on the reward takes away from intellectual innovation, which is not a problem for mindless repetitive work (hamster on a wheel) but becomes detractive when that thought capacity and attention is needed elsewhere.

 

The easiest way to show this is by example, which runs the risk of being too "narrow-minded" for you so I will try to describe in general terms. These awards will require some sort of criteria. When these criteria are set, they will be defined and concrete. By your definition, there will be some sort of competition involved - not everyone will get the award. Therefore, these defined criteria will motivate people -- there's that word again, motivate -- to pursue those criteria, and pursue them better than their competitors. In essence, mindlessly following the criteria set before them.

 

This is not a new idea, nor a difficult one. Do the factual claims against the flat-earth concepts, geocentrism, etc. require proof for you to accept? If they do, do you demand that someone else spoonfeed it to you? That is laziness, not righteousness.

 

So what motivates people to pursue innovation? How did the most successful projects in the world come about? Examples are everywhere, open source being the prototype, if you only looked for them--perhaps by doing a search.

 

You accused me of being short-sighted (which I literally am) but it is you who is short-sighted if you refuse to consider a more complete perspective on your competition-reward obsession. You asked for proof, whatever that word means, and I suggested a means of finding it -- a means which I made sure also pointed to something that convinced me. So if you want to talk about inappropriate, look at yourself, refusing to think it through yet making demands for someone to spoonfeed you proof for an idea that's simply an extension of your own.

 

The flip side of the coin is, if I pointed you to a specific source, would you be convinced? I think not; given the stubbornness you have shown, you are much more likely to undermine the argument by discrediting the source. Gee, I wonder what YOUR motivation is for demanding proof?!

 

Go ahead, show me the source that proves your claim. You're still beating around the bush.

 

All you have shown to be is a bucket of stupid analogies. Thanks for the flat-earth one; that takes the cake.

[tearless]

go ahead, show me why you are inclined to disagree. I'm surprised you are able to read far enough into a dissertation as to come across my stupid analogies.

 

all you have proven to be is a juvenile name-caller unable to make your own arguments. thanks for your service to humanity; we couldn't do it without you.

[bloh]

I'm going to give it a rest because it's quite clear you misspoke, have realized you have nothing to back it up and instead of admitting it you choose to pussyfoot around the issue.

[tearless]

I'm going to give it a rest because it's quite clear this is beyond your understanding and instead of admitting it you chose to be stubborn and refuse to go outside your imaginary boundaries.

 

I stand by my statement, and if you disagree that's fine but you'll have to actually make an argument rather than demanding "backup".

 

By the way, you've "pussyfooted" around finding something to back up any of your statements. hypocritical much?

[UTPEOPLE]

im confused... so the honours part of HPF has non-academic qualifications.

 

Furthermore... A huge hole in your 70% vs. 90% argument (70% as a baseline for people who dont cram) is that even in med school, there are some people who have a difficult time with the material and still have to cram and "binge on information" in order to get that 70%. For the 90% people, yeah... the PF means that they dont have to work to still get the passing grade, but the main problem is that there is no longer any difference between the people who had to cram to get that 70 (and who would not likely pass without cramming) and the people who didnt have to to get that 70%. While this might be a very small proportion of the class, it is still unfair. Why should it be so hard to just publish the grades and let the residency programs do what they will with the info, instead of censoring that additional info at the very beginning?

[tearless]

sorry again I wasn't clear on the situation. the proposal isn't HPF, it's a Dean's award system. yes, it's a bit of semantics, but the long and short of it is that the Dean doesn't have the authority to unilaterally change the grading system; however he does have the authority to slap his name on an award and come up with his own criteria. He has indicated that there will be academic and non-academic criteria. Only that much is clear. He has "pussyfooted", as bloh would say, around defining any other attributes or objectives - it is not even clear whether it will be competitive (limited number) or not (unlimited).

 

Yes there is cramming in med obviously, but not quite in the same way as in undergrad - if you don't have the basic understanding, there is no way to use whatever details you manage to pick up. In short, if you've been slacking for an entire block, you won't manage to pick everything up in a few days.

 

There is essentially nobody who makes it this far and is unable to master the basic concepts. This is a rare luxury. Pretty much everyone here can pass an exam without cramming. Undoubtedly those who score exceptionally high have either crammed a lot or just know a lot about that area, but at the end of the day, that one thing does not a better doctor make.

 

The grades that are published to residency programs (and written comments that go along with them actually) come mainly from clinical years 3/4. Again, my understanding is that grades ARE published as it is. Clinical evals would obviously include competency in the field, and these are arguably infinitely more relevant than performance in pre-clinical. And these evals would include non-exam performance. This is not censored, they do grade students' performance--but subjectively, as there is no good objective way to do it. The grades are not %grade, they are minimally competent vs exceptionally competent. And I believe the subjective written comments actually count for more than the absolute number score (e.g. "arrogant".."tardy".."chronically smells of anatomy lab".. just kidding, I actually don't know).

 

What I'm saying here is that the relevant evals are already published to CaRMS, and an additional award is distracting and unnecessary.

 

My argument is that you should be free to better yourself in whatever way you choose, especially in pre-clinical years 1/2 where grades and evals are somewhat contrived and removed from clinical practice, and not be pigeon-holed into pursuing only those activities which would be recognized by an additional award, whether the pursuits are academic or otherwise. The motivation should come from within, not from chasing an award dangled on a long stick--if you are not intrinsically motivated to do your job well, no amount of external motivation will do that (i.e. it may make you do your job, but not necessarily well).

[apache]

The overly competitive nature of undergrad pushed me into being an average med student, I got tired of being stressed all the time and trying to beat everyone.

 

Honestly, what are the class averages anyways? like 80-85, what's the difference, really, between that and a 95 by the time you get into clinical practice? Maybe if HPF went through I'd just study for the test instead of reading all the extra non tested material I currently read because I'm curious about certain aspects of a block or specialties were not studying at the moment and know I'm going to pass w/o having to get a 95.

 

Regardless of the fact that ALL of your analogies are borderline retarded, I will make a brief comment.

 

When it comes to CARMS wouldn't an applicant with honours during clerkship AND pre-clinical studies stand out more than a person with merely a pass on the pre-clinicals?

 

I think the entire point of moving away from pass/fail is that the extra bit of competition would encourage students to go the extra mile and push for the 95%, rather than being comfortable with the 85%. Competition can be rough and viscous, but it does have its advantages. Focus solely on it's cons is somewhat short-sighted.

 

Having said that, I don't know where I stand entirely. However, your incredible narrow-minded view enticed me to comment.

[apache]

Exactly, if you know what you're doing from pre-clinical, it'll show in clinical, and guess what... residency is about doing clinical work, not writing basic science exams...

 

The grades that are published to residency programs (and written comments that go along with them actually) come mainly from clinical years 3/4. Again, my understanding is that grades ARE published as it is. Clinical evals would obviously include competency in the field, and these are arguably infinitely more relevant than performance in pre-clinical. And these evals would include non-exam performance. This is not censored, they do grade students' performance--but subjectively, as there is no good objective way to do it. The grades are not %grade, they are minimally competent vs exceptionally competent. And I believe the subjective written comments actually count for more than the absolute number score (e.g. "arrogant".."tardy".."chronically smells of anatomy lab".. just kidding, I actually don't know).

 

What I'm saying here is that the relevant evals are already published to CaRMS, and an additional award is distracting and unnecessary.