Why does Brock University have such a bad reputation among premeds?

[House,M.D]

I understand that Brock University does not have a huge premed population and that they do not have their own medical school. However, why does it have such the bad reputation among Ontario universities? Most people assume a student goes to Brock for Health Sciences or Biomed because they are too dumb to get into any other schools in Ontario. I understand that according to statistics that the Science Admission average to Brock is 80.3% (vs Mac 89%,UofT 87% and Western 89%), which I admit is considerably lower. Do people maybe think that they have personal or financial reasons for selecting this university? Also, how do people on this forum judge Brock and say that it is easier than everywhere else is? Unless you have been a student there and then transferred to another university (or vice versa), how can you judge its academic standards? From what I've read, Brock has a lot of recent advances in their science standards and facilities. I am interested in everyone’s view on this because countless individuals have told me that going to such an institution will put you at a disadvantage for a future in medicine.

 

Thanks for any feedback,

[AuxButtesChaumont]

I understand that Brock University does not have a huge premed population and that they do not have their own medical school. However, why does it have such the bad reputation among Ontario universities? Most people assume a student goes to Brock for Health Sciences or Biomed because they are too dumb to get into any other schools in Ontario. I understand that according to statistics that the Science Admission average to Brock is 80.3% (vs Mac 89%,UofT 87% and Western 89%), which I admit is considerably lower. Do people maybe think that they have personal or financial reasons for selecting this university? Also, how do people on this forum judge Brock and say that it is easier than everywhere else is? Unless you have been a student there and then transferred to another university (or vice versa), how can you judge its academic standards? From what I've read, Brock has a lot of recent advances in their science standards and facilities. I am interested in everyone’s view on this because countless individuals have told me that going to such an institution will put you at a disadvantage for a future in medicine.

 

Thanks for any feedback,

 

A few things:

1) You're right about the bolded part.

2) Medical schools don't care where you did your undergrad

3) It might be a good idea to go to a university where undergrads have research/EC opportunities... if you think Brock has what you need, there is no real harm in going there

[McGillLabRat]

I loled as soon as I saw Brock Medical Sciences's username pop up.

 

And this is just uni bashing that happens all the time. People from Harvard will always bash McGill or UofT (or not hear of them) and people from McGill and UofT will bash Brock, Ryerson, Concordia, and York. I wouldn't take it too seriously. Of course there are going to be smart people who could have gone to McGill but chose Brock for whatever reason such as scholarships.

[Exocytosis]

I started at Brock and transferred to a larger school. My problem with Brock was that the degree options were really narrow.

 

I didn't notice any increase in difficulty from Brock to where I transferred (UWO), although UWO isn't known for being terribly difficult either.

 

Also, fun fact - U of T won't let you transfer if you have more than 10 credits toward your current degree (whereas other schools will just limit the amount of transfer credits they accept to 10).

[soporific]

Was wondering this too. Why don't people bash, say, Lakehead or Trent more?

[Intrepid86]

I understand that Brock University does not have a huge premed population and that they do not have their own medical school. However, why does it have such the bad reputation among Ontario universities? Most people assume a student goes to Brock for Health Sciences or Biomed because they are too dumb to get into any other schools in Ontario. I understand that according to statistics that the Science Admission average to Brock is 80.3% (vs Mac 89%,UofT 87% and Western 89%), which I admit is considerably lower. Do people maybe think that they have personal or financial reasons for selecting this university? Also, how do people on this forum judge Brock and say that it is easier than everywhere else is? Unless you have been a student there and then transferred to another university (or vice versa), how can you judge its academic standards? From what I've read, Brock has a lot of recent advances in their science standards and facilities. I am interested in everyone’s view on this because countless individuals have told me that going to such an institution will put you at a disadvantage for a future in medicine.

 

There are no truly bad universities in Canada. The same can't be said for the U.S., which has so many schools that quality varies considerably across the nation. Just because Maclean's ranks Canadian schools every year doesn't mean it has any significance on med school admissions (or any significance period). That's why you shouldn't focus on reputation. That's why you shouldn't listen to people advising you not to study at Brock. "Pre-meds" who poke fun at Brock do so with an artificial hierarchy in mind, and at the end of the day it's always meaningless. Remember, you make yourself, not your school.

[rmorelan]

There are no truly bad universities in Canada. The same can't be said for the U.S., which has so many schools that quality varies considerably across the nation. Just because Maclean's ranks Canadian schools every year doesn't mean it has any significance on med school admissions (or any significance period). That's why you shouldn't focus on reputation. That's why you shouldn't listen to people advising you not to study at Brock. "Pre-meds" who poke fun at Brock do so with an artificial hierarchy in mind, and at the end of the day it's always meaningless. Remember, you make yourself, not your school.

 

MacLean's - ha. what a useless ranking system. My favourite was when I was when they for 4 straight years kept mentioning a particular prof as highly admired - he wasn't, and he was retired by for 3 years by the time of the last printing. They just pick a bunch of things that probably are important and then cobble them together in some strange formula with weightings they happen to think is important. Even if you believe the overall rankings it doesn't help you with a particular school's program in a specific area (ok Toronto for instance is 3rd overall in the MD/PhD category, but for our purposes what rank - if you even cared or thought it mattered - specifically is the medical school?)

[nonstop]

MacLean's - ha. what a useless ranking system. My favourite was when I was when they for 4 straight years kept mentioning a particular prof as highly admired - he wasn't, and he was retired by for 3 years by the time of the last printing. They just pick a bunch of things that probably are important and then cobble them together in some strange formula with weightings they happen to think is important. Even if you believe the overall rankings it doesn't help you with a particular school's program in a specific area (ok Toronto for instance is 3rd overall in the MD/PhD category, but for our purposes what rank - if you even cared or thought it mattered - specifically is the medical school?)

 

+1

 

And because they're really one of the only entities that rank Canadian universities, a lot of people take them as canon. So annoying.

[rmorelan]

+1

 

And because they're really one of the only entities that rank Canadian universities, a lot of people take them as canon. So annoying.

 

People just love to rank and categorize things.

 

They real problem is if you believe absolutely the rankings are true - then you adjust your policies to increase your ranking. HUGE temptation to do just that - I mean who doesn't want to be number 1, even if that is not exactly a meaningful measure. So now you have some magazine doing questionable evaluation tactics dictating the educational policies of the entire country. It is a light shade of insanity.

[McGillLabRat]

People just love to rank and categorize things.

 

They real problem is if you believe absolutely the rankings are true - then you adjust your policies to increase your ranking. HUGE temptation to do just that - I mean who doesn't want to be number 1, even if that is not exactly a meaningful measure. So now you have some magazine doing questionable evaluation tactics dictating the educational policies of the entire country. It is a light shade of insanity.

 

Well to be fair, it's not just Macleans that's ranking Canadian universities. International ranking systems consistently put UofT, McGill, and UBC at the top. Other Canadian universities generally trail behind quite a bit.

 

I'm not saying that the ranking system says anything about how smart the students are. I mean admission requirements for UofT are lower than Western's for example. I would say that these ranking do very generally reflect the international image of universities, and could be important for graduate schools or jobs in the States for example.

[rmorelan]

Well to be fair, it's not just Macleans that's ranking Canadian universities. International ranking systems consistently put UofT, McGill, and UBC at the top. Other Canadian universities generally trail behind quite a bit.

 

I'm not saying that the ranking system says anything about how smart the students are. I mean admission requirements for UofT are lower than Western's for example. I would say that these ranking do very generally reflect the international image of universities, and could be important for graduate schools or jobs in the States for example.

 

When multiple groups collective start to stratify things on the basis of independent evaluations I take notice. I am not saying you cannot rank schools overall (although again those rankings may be completely useless on the individual program basis) - but the trouble I see is that the media etc aren't reporting all those rankings, they are reporting the one ranking system that I think is quite likely the weakest like it is absolute truth and resources are shifted around as a result.

[FuturePT216]

It's funny because as parents and high school kids, you really think these rankings and prestige and all that actually mean something. I was one of those people, but you don't really realize how false a lot of it is until you're in university yourself.

[shikimate]

As far as I understand these rankings tend to weigh research heavily, so perhaps it's no surprise that big research oriented universities are ranked higher. To a certain extend it's about lack of information because most parents and high school students probably don't know that med programs don't care about ranking of university.

[rmorelan]

As far as I understand these rankings tend to weigh research heavily, so perhaps it's no surprise that big research oriented universities are ranked higher. To a certain extend it's about lack of information because most parents and high school students probably don't know that med programs don't care about ranking of university.

 

or dare I say most employers about research(?)

 

at least not to the degree these surveys make it out to be.

[future_doc]

Ranking is a meaningless exercise for the masses. I chose a no-name university for undergrad based upon my interest and passion for a particular program (described in a below link found in my signature). I worked incredibly hard, became a straight A student, obtained patient experiences during internships, it was a great preparation for medicine, and I got into med on my first try. So-called prestige is illusory and a meaningless distraction. Giving your parents bragging rights as to the university you are attending for undergraduate studies does nothing whatsoever to help you attain a competitive GPA for your application for med school and selecting undergrad studies on this basis is going down a slippery slope.

[jock2doc]

I agree with all of the above. Not once during my interviews was I asked about my choice of university. The rankings put out by Maclean's have little to do with the quality of UG education you will receive. As mentioned previously, the US has a much greater discrepancy when it comes to UG education and that has to do with their universities relying more on private funding than public.

[ellorie]

It's true. People always ask me how I could have turned down U of T meds for Western and I just tell them that the program is a much better fit for me and the way I learn. And I don't regret that I did it, because it truly is a better fit. But people who aren't med students don't get it.

[Hockeynut]

I agree with all of the above. Not once during my interviews was I asked about my choice of university. The rankings put out by Maclean's have little to do with the quality of UG education you will receive. As mentioned previously, the US has a much greater discrepancy when it comes to UG education and that has to do with their universities relying more on private funding than public.

 

You are right but there is a discrepency between Canadian schools. I have close friends at many different schools and what we learn in a course that is supposed to be "the same" is quite shocking.

[nonstop]

Well to be fair, it's not just Macleans that's ranking Canadian universities. International ranking systems consistently put UofT, McGill, and UBC at the top. Other Canadian universities generally trail behind quite a bit.

 

I'm not saying that the ranking system says anything about how smart the students are. I mean admission requirements for UofT are lower than Western's for example. I would say that these ranking do very generally reflect the international image of universities, and could be important for graduate schools or jobs in the States for example.

 

A lot of these "international" rankings (such as QS, Times) are based on reputation not quality (since it's easy to measure reputation - just send a bunch of surveys around - but near impossible to assess quality) and so a lot of traditional, common-name universities do well in these rankings. Also, there is a lot of bias in these international rankings towards American universities. A lot of good Canadian universities don't even show up in the top 300.

[schmitty]

I agree with all of the above. Not once during my interviews was I asked about my choice of university. The rankings put out by Maclean's have little to do with the quality of UG education you will receive. As mentioned previously, the US has a much greater discrepancy when it comes to UG education and that has to do with their universities relying more on private funding than public.

 

Strange, I was asked this in 2 out of 3 of my panel interviews. I even honestly told my Western panel (at the end of a great interview) that I would go to U of T instead of Western for x, y, z reasons. Seems they respected my honesty since they still gave me an offer.

 

I agree that rankings are taken too much to heart when choosing a university. The city, the programs available and the opportunities are much more important. However, it is usually the large, usually highly ranked universities, that have the most opportunity in terms of research and program diversity.

[McGillLabRat]

Chasing prestige is a waste of time if you're only going for Canadian medical schools. American medical schools tend to care more I feel, as do graduate programs. Biotech companies definitely look at where the degree was from and apparently actually look down on people who go to universities with declining rankings for the grad or post-doc (doing a graduate degree at MIT and then going to Boston University for post-doc).

 

Your university is also somewhat important for getting competitive or international internships.

[jock2doc]

However, it is usually the large, usually highly ranked universities, that have the most opportunity in terms of research and program diversity.

 

Very true. My main EC was through varsity sport so research opportunities had little to do with it (also, I was an econ major so my research exposure was limited). In response to Hockeynut, I should have said there was a negligible difference between schools, compared to the states. All in all, I think the someone from a smaller school isn't at much of a disadvantage when admissions time rolls around. Again, there may be a an advantage to being at a big school, but I don't think it would account for a major part of the Ad Coms decision.

[NutritionRunner]

You are right but there is a discrepency between Canadian schools. I have close friends at many different schools and what we learn in a course that is supposed to be "the same" is quite shocking.

 

And yet when I was right out of high school I had friends attending many different universities in different provinces, and we all found we were taught essentially the same things, often using the same textbooks, with only minor variations. This was with friends at McGill, UofT, McMaster, Western, Queens, Guelph, Ottawa, St. FX, and Carleton. Now maybe things have changed since then, or maybe it was the programs we were in, but we all covered basically the same material. What differed seemed to be which course was the "weed out" course, with more challenging exams. I seem to recall it being chemistry at Guelph, physics at Carleton, and biology at Western.

 

But that's my experience. Yours has obviously been different.

[schmitty]

Very true. My main EC was through varsity sport so research opportunities had little to do with it (also, I was an econ major so my research exposure was limited). In response to Hockeynut, I should have said there was a negligible difference between schools, compared to the states. All in all, I think the someone from a smaller school isn't at much of a disadvantage when admissions time rolls around. Again, there may be a an advantage to being at a big school, but I don't think it would account for a major part of the Ad Coms decision.

 

Ahhh...yeah, nobody comes to U of T for sports - The Blues kinda suck.

[jock2doc]

Ahhh...yeah, nobody comes to U of T for sports - The Blues kinda suck.

 

Hahaha some athletes would have a hard time getting in there, especially hockey players who usually do jack all during their WHL/OHL/QMJHL years (myself included).