Western Medical Science Vs York Biomedical Science

[navr]

For what it's worth, me and my friends have TA'd medsci courses the last two years. There have been 0 changes in difficulty since we were in the program. Hell, I even recognized a few similar questions from back in my day.

 

I'm not gonna continue arguing, visit the campus, speak to students, make an informed decision based on what you value and prefer.

 

As for statistics... my graduate program is in statistics, not sure what kind of causality you're trying to prove with descriptive statistics, but you do you.

Tell me: what is the definition of "population" in statistics, and we go from there.

 

I PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that the level of difficulty SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED in the last few years.

 

Ask yourself: WHY 60%?

 

Many engineering programs in Ontario require 70%. 68%, 70%, always centered at around 70%.

 

The answer is clear as a blue sky: 60% is SO CLOSE TO 50% (READ FAILURE). Thus, they will have an EASY TIME to fail AS MANY STUDENTS AS NECESSARY (did I already mention that they are not in the business of teaching you, but in the business of FAILING YOU?) There is almost 1000 of applicants (600 or 700 to be precise). Now imagine that they had set the cutoff at 70%, what would have happened? The answer: I and some 100 other students would now be in the pool, as simple as that. Consequently, we would overflow the science department, and did I mention that the science department has a limited capacity? Yes, I did. With 70% cutoff, I would be at ~55% and would be playing guitar now instead of writing about statistics on this forum. Being only 11% dumber than the majority of capable medsci students, and I am out of all options. Let's assume there was only 1 test for everything at medsci 1st year. 10 questions total. 200 students answer 6 questions correctly. 80 students answer 6 to 7 questions correctly. And 20 answers 7 to 8 correctly. Consequently, 80 students answer 5 to 4 questions correctly => They (I) are out, just like that. Only 1 question separates you from the majority of the most capable students. 1 mistake and you are done.

That is why the cutoff is set at 60%.  ANY ASPECT YOU LOOK AT IT, IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR MAJORITY OF APPLICANTS OUT THERE TO APPLY TO WESTERN MEDSCI.

[InstantRamen]

I can't believe this is still a thing.

[Kirby17]

Tell me: what is the definition of "population" in statistics, and we go from there.

 

I PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that the level of difficulty SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED in the last few years.

 

Ask yourself: WHY 60%?

 

Many engineering programs in Ontario require 70%. 68%, 70%, always centered at around 70%.

 

The answer is clear as a blue sky: 60% is SO CLOSE TO 50% (READ FAILURE). Thus, they will have an EASY TIME to fail AS MANY STUDENTS AS NECESSARY (did I already mention that they are not in the business of teaching you, but in the business of FAILING YOU?) There is almost 1000 of applicants (600 or 700 to be precise). Now imagine that they had set the cutoff at 70%, what would have happened? The answer: I and some 100 other students would now be in the pool, as simple as that. Consequently, we would overflow the science department, and did I mention that the science department has a limited capacity? Yes, I did. With 70% cutoff, I would be at ~55% and would be playing guitar now instead of writing about statistics on this forum. Being only 11% dumber than the majority of capable medsci students, and I am out of all options. Let's assume there was only 1 test for everything at medsci 1st year. 10 questions total. 200 students answer 6 questions correctly. 80 students answer 6 to 7 questions correctly. And 20 answers 7 to 8 correctly. Consequently, 80 students answer 5 to 4 questions correctly => They (I) are out, just like that. Only 1 question separates you from the majority of the most capable students. 1 mistake and you are done.

That is why the cutoff is set at 60%.  ANY ASPECT YOU LOOK AT IT, IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR MAJORITY OF APPLICANTS OUT THERE TO APPLY TO WESTERN MEDSCI.

I don't get why you need to hate on the program so much. Clearly, the majority of students have no problem with it. Maybe your learning style is different from the way courses are taught here and that caused you do perform poorly. That does not mean the program is trying to fail you.

 

The 60% cutoff you keep talking about is the cutoff to enter Med Sci 2. Why would having a 70% cutoff increase the amount of students that enter Med Sci 2? Having a 70% would actually decrease the amount of students that progress to Med Sci 2. I think you're under the misconception that if the cutoff was 70%, you would've been able to get higher grades. The course averages are kept at around the same place each year (even though you don't believe it and have no proof to back it up), and increasing the cutoff would only decrease the number of students that progress into Med Sci 2. 

How do I know first year averages were not decreased when the cutoff for Med Sci 2 decreased? 

Class averages for 2015-16:

Bio 1001: 77%

Chem 1301: 73%

Chem 1302: 72.35%

Physics 1028: ~78% (Professor Zinke even said the course average for physics has been between 76-79% for the past 16 years)

Physics 1029: ~78%

All these courses have a standard deviation of around 10-15%, and if you're getting under a 60, that means you're doing significantly worse than your classmates, and blaming the school for it. 

How did you draw the conclusion that lowering the cutoff from Med Sci 1 to Med Sci 2 meant that course averages were lowered as well? So, even if the cutoff was 70%, you would not have made the cutoff anyways, because the class averages would NOT be raised if the cutoff for Med Sci 2 was raised and your performance relative to the class would not be good enough in either situation.

 

Also, being "only 11% dumber" is actually quite significant. Imagine comparing a 79% to a 90%, or a 69% to an 80%. Considering the distribution of marks in courses, you would likely jump up 20 percentiles just by going up "only 11%"

 

Finally, your example of having 1 test to illustrate the kids that make it to Med Sci 2 is so stupid. No, 1 mistake will not make or break you. Western practically gives you a free 10-20% (30% in bio) in each of the first year science courses, so anyone struggling to hit a 60% is probably not cut out for the program anyway. Also, according to the class averages, the majority of the kids do reach the 60% cutoff. Even 1 standard deviation below (which is a whole 10-15%), and the majority of students are still making the cutoff.

 

There's no need to blame the program for your poor performance. If anything, talking about how Western's method of teaching does not suit your learning style would be much more useful than trying to scare kids away from a very fair program.

[thethirdlaw]

Class averages for 2015-16:

Bio 1001: 77%

Chem 1301: 73%

Chem 1302: 72.35%

Physics 1028: ~78% (Professor Zinke even said the course average for physics has been between 76-79% for the past 16 years)

Physics 1029: ~78%

 

Interesting because for 2010/11 they were: (the brackets show the change 2011 - 2016, a negative change meaning the average has increased since 2011)

 

Bio 1001: 75% (-2)

Chem 1301: 72% (-1)

Chem 1302: 74% (+1.65)

Physics 1028: 77% (-1)

Physics 1029: 78% (0)

 

Assuming a normal distribution (which is fairly valid because of the high number of students and the CLT etc. etc.) and assuming a mostly conservative SD of 15% around an average of 75%, and extending the three-sigma rule, we see that 84% of students achieve course grades > 60%.

 

That's not just fair, it's fantastic.

 

So here we've proven that course grades have not changed in the last 5 years. And that most students in 1st year achieve cut offs to continue into BMSc year 2.

[StriveP]

Both are great schools. I would go to both schools for a day and decide which school you like better. In terms of difficulty level, no one can judge that. It all depends on the prof that teaches the course (which varies each year) and the availability of "bird" courses each year. 

[navr]

I don't get why you need to hate on the program so much. Clearly, the majority of students have no problem with it. Maybe your learning style is different from the way courses are taught here and that caused you do perform poorly. That does not mean the program is trying to fail you.

 

The 60% cutoff you keep talking about is the cutoff to enter Med Sci 2. Why would having a 70% cutoff increase the amount of students that enter Med Sci 2? Having a 70% would actually decrease the amount of students that progress to Med Sci 2. I think you're under the misconception that if the cutoff was 70%, you would've been able to get higher grades. The course averages are kept at around the same place each year (even though you don't believe it and have no proof to back it up), and increasing the cutoff would only decrease the number of students that progress into Med Sci 2. 

How do I know first year averages were not decreased when the cutoff for Med Sci 2 decreased? 

Class averages for 2015-16:

Bio 1001: 77%

Chem 1301: 73%

Chem 1302: 72.35%

Physics 1028: ~78% (Professor Zinke even said the course average for physics has been between 76-79% for the past 16 years)

Physics 1029: ~78%

All these courses have a standard deviation of around 10-15%, and if you're getting under a 60, that means you're doing significantly worse than your classmates, and blaming the school for it. 

How did you draw the conclusion that lowering the cutoff from Med Sci 1 to Med Sci 2 meant that course averages were lowered as well? So, even if the cutoff was 70%, you would not have made the cutoff anyways, because the class averages would NOT be raised if the cutoff for Med Sci 2 was raised and your performance relative to the class would not be good enough in either situation.

 

Also, being "only 11% dumber" is actually quite significant. Imagine comparing a 79% to a 90%, or a 69% to an 80%. Considering the distribution of marks in courses, you would likely jump up 20 percentiles just by going up "only 11%"

 

Finally, your example of having 1 test to illustrate the kids that make it to Med Sci 2 is so stupid. No, 1 mistake will not make or break you. Western practically gives you a free 10-20% (30% in bio) in each of the first year science courses, so anyone struggling to hit a 60% is probably not cut out for the program anyway. Also, according to the class averages, the majority of the kids do reach the 60% cutoff. Even 1 standard deviation below (which is a whole 10-15%), and the majority of students are still making the cutoff.

 

There's no need to blame the program for your poor performance. If anything, talking about how Western's method of teaching does not suit your learning style would be much more useful than trying to scare kids away from a very fair program.

Well, I read only the first two sentences, and boy, you are dumber than I thought! You got it all wrong. I am dumb, compared to 50% of 1st year medsci students 2015/2016. But trust me, you are dumber than me. Either that, or you are a troll. Now go back and cite where did I mention that I hate something??? I am giving you the facts, a simple as that.

[navr]

I don't get why you need to hate on the program so much. Clearly, the majority of students have no problem with it. Maybe your learning style is different from the way courses are taught here and that caused you do perform poorly. That does not mean the program is trying to fail you.

 

The 60% cutoff you keep talking about is the cutoff to enter Med Sci 2. Why would having a 70% cutoff increase the amount of students that enter Med Sci 2? Having a 70% would actually decrease the amount of students that progress to Med Sci 2. I think you're under the misconception that if the cutoff was 70%, you would've been able to get higher grades. The course averages are kept at around the same place each year (even though you don't believe it and have no proof to back it up), and increasing the cutoff would only decrease the number of students that progress into Med Sci 2. 

How do I know first year averages were not decreased when the cutoff for Med Sci 2 decreased? 

Class averages for 2015-16:

Bio 1001: 77%

Chem 1301: 73%

Chem 1302: 72.35%

Physics 1028: ~78% (Professor Zinke even said the course average for physics has been between 76-79% for the past 16 years)

Physics 1029: ~78%

All these courses have a standard deviation of around 10-15%, and if you're getting under a 60, that means you're doing significantly worse than your classmates, and blaming the school for it. 

How did you draw the conclusion that lowering the cutoff from Med Sci 1 to Med Sci 2 meant that course averages were lowered as well? So, even if the cutoff was 70%, you would not have made the cutoff anyways, because the class averages would NOT be raised if the cutoff for Med Sci 2 was raised and your performance relative to the class would not be good enough in either situation.

 

Also, being "only 11% dumber" is actually quite significant. Imagine comparing a 79% to a 90%, or a 69% to an 80%. Considering the distribution of marks in courses, you would likely jump up 20 percentiles just by going up "only 11%"

 

Finally, your example of having 1 test to illustrate the kids that make it to Med Sci 2 is so stupid. No, 1 mistake will not make or break you. Western practically gives you a free 10-20% (30% in bio) in each of the first year science courses, so anyone struggling to hit a 60% is probably not cut out for the program anyway. Also, according to the class averages, the majority of the kids do reach the 60% cutoff. Even 1 standard deviation below (which is a whole 10-15%), and the majority of students are still making the cutoff.

 

There's no need to blame the program for your poor performance. If anything, talking about how Western's method of teaching does not suit your learning style would be much more useful than trying to scare kids away from a very fair program.

"Why would having a 70% cutoff increase the amount of students that enter Med Sci 2?"

 

Unfortunately, you have a deep problem following the argumentation and logical reasoning, especially when statistics is involved (call it statistical reasoning). This is, I am afraid, a showstopper for you. 

[navr]

I don't get why you need to hate on the program so much. Clearly, the majority of students have no problem with it. Maybe your learning style is different from the way courses are taught here and that caused you do perform poorly. That does not mean the program is trying to fail you.

 

The 60% cutoff you keep talking about is the cutoff to enter Med Sci 2. Why would having a 70% cutoff increase the amount of students that enter Med Sci 2? Having a 70% would actually decrease the amount of students that progress to Med Sci 2. I think you're under the misconception that if the cutoff was 70%, you would've been able to get higher grades. The course averages are kept at around the same place each year (even though you don't believe it and have no proof to back it up), and increasing the cutoff would only decrease the number of students that progress into Med Sci 2. 

How do I know first year averages were not decreased when the cutoff for Med Sci 2 decreased? 

Class averages for 2015-16:

Bio 1001: 77%

Chem 1301: 73%

Chem 1302: 72.35%

Physics 1028: ~78% (Professor Zinke even said the course average for physics has been between 76-79% for the past 16 years)

Physics 1029: ~78%

All these courses have a standard deviation of around 10-15%, and if you're getting under a 60, that means you're doing significantly worse than your classmates, and blaming the school for it. 

How did you draw the conclusion that lowering the cutoff from Med Sci 1 to Med Sci 2 meant that course averages were lowered as well? So, even if the cutoff was 70%, you would not have made the cutoff anyways, because the class averages would NOT be raised if the cutoff for Med Sci 2 was raised and your performance relative to the class would not be good enough in either situation.

 

Also, being "only 11% dumber" is actually quite significant. Imagine comparing a 79% to a 90%, or a 69% to an 80%. Considering the distribution of marks in courses, you would likely jump up 20 percentiles just by going up "only 11%"

 

Finally, your example of having 1 test to illustrate the kids that make it to Med Sci 2 is so stupid. No, 1 mistake will not make or break you. Western practically gives you a free 10-20% (30% in bio) in each of the first year science courses, so anyone struggling to hit a 60% is probably not cut out for the program anyway. Also, according to the class averages, the majority of the kids do reach the 60% cutoff. Even 1 standard deviation below (which is a whole 10-15%), and the majority of students are still making the cutoff.

 

There's no need to blame the program for your poor performance. If anything, talking about how Western's method of teaching does not suit your learning style would be much more useful than trying to scare kids away from a very fair program.

"and if you're getting under a 60, that means you're doing significantly worse than your classmates, and blaming the school for it. "

 

Wrong. Not I, but WE, or to be more precise, AROUND 300 PEOPLE, HALO?! Again: all kudos to you if you are >60%. Thank your mother and father genes for that. Thank them for the good life they had so that the epigenetics did not influence negatively your scores at medsci. BUT THERE ARE 300 OF US, DUMBER INDIVIDUALS. And I have a problem with that BECAUSE IT IS A HUGE, HUGE NUMBER. If only me and a handful of others are out, so be it. I don't blame anybody, neither genetics nor epigenetics. BUT TO HAVE 300 HUMAN BEINGS FAILING MEDSCI 1ST YEAR, I CALL THAT A DISASTER OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED. I URGE, URGE PROSPECTIVE APPLICANTS TO FORGET THIS PROGRAM. A DO NOT HATE IT. I AM STATING THE FACTS. IT IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT PROGRAM. READ EVERYTHING SAID HERE AND MAKE YOUR OWN JUDGMENT, THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING. 

[navr]

Interesting because for 2010/11 they were: (the brackets show the change 2011 - 2016, a negative change meaning the average has increased since 2011)

 

Bio 1001: 75% (-2)

Chem 1301: 72% (-1)

Chem 1302: 74% (+1.65)

Physics 1028: 77% (-1)

Physics 1029: 78% (0)

 

Assuming a normal distribution (which is fairly valid because of the high number of students and the CLT etc. etc.) and assuming a mostly conservative SD of 15% around an average of 75%, and extending the three-sigma rule, we see that 84% of students achieve course grades > 60%.

 

That's not just fair, it's fantastic.

 

So here we've proven that course grades have not changed in the last 5 years. And that most students in 1st year achieve cut offs to continue into BMSc year 2.

Not true.

 

Show me the official data. In Bio 1001, for example, 66% was the mean. A big discrepancy with your data. Those data are not made public for a reason. An that reason is a simple one: it would cause MANY applicants to deflect from medsci and go to greener pastures (like york kine, for example) 

[navr]

Both are great schools. I would go to both schools for a day and decide which school you like better. In terms of difficulty level, no one can judge that. It all depends on the prof that teaches the course (which varies each year) and the availability of "bird" courses each year. 

There are no bird courses at western medsci. I took Psychology, boy was I wrong?! IT IS MORE DIFFICULT THAN BOTH BIOLOGIES!

[navr]

Interesting because for 2010/11 they were: (the brackets show the change 2011 - 2016, a negative change meaning the average has increased since 2011)

 

Bio 1001: 75% (-2)

Chem 1301: 72% (-1)

Chem 1302: 74% (+1.65)

Physics 1028: 77% (-1)

Physics 1029: 78% (0)

 

Assuming a normal distribution (which is fairly valid because of the high number of students and the CLT etc. etc.) and assuming a mostly conservative SD of 15% around an average of 75%, and extending the three-sigma rule, we see that 84% of students achieve course grades > 60%.

 

That's not just fair, it's fantastic.

 

So here we've proven that course grades have not changed in the last 5 years. And that most students in 1st year achieve cut offs to continue into BMSc year 2.

I bet $1000 that those numbers/percentages that you provided are wrong and that the actual percentages are at least 10% less than that.

[mp99]

lol

[navr]

I don't get why you need to hate on the program so much. Clearly, the majority of students have no problem with it. Maybe your learning style is different from the way courses are taught here and that caused you do perform poorly. That does not mean the program is trying to fail you.

 

The 60% cutoff you keep talking about is the cutoff to enter Med Sci 2. Why would having a 70% cutoff increase the amount of students that enter Med Sci 2? Having a 70% would actually decrease the amount of students that progress to Med Sci 2. I think you're under the misconception that if the cutoff was 70%, you would've been able to get higher grades. The course averages are kept at around the same place each year (even though you don't believe it and have no proof to back it up), and increasing the cutoff would only decrease the number of students that progress into Med Sci 2. 

How do I know first year averages were not decreased when the cutoff for Med Sci 2 decreased? 

Class averages for 2015-16:

Bio 1001: 77%

Chem 1301: 73%

Chem 1302: 72.35%

Physics 1028: ~78% (Professor Zinke even said the course average for physics has been between 76-79% for the past 16 years)

Physics 1029: ~78%

All these courses have a standard deviation of around 10-15%, and if you're getting under a 60, that means you're doing significantly worse than your classmates, and blaming the school for it. 

How did you draw the conclusion that lowering the cutoff from Med Sci 1 to Med Sci 2 meant that course averages were lowered as well? So, even if the cutoff was 70%, you would not have made the cutoff anyways, because the class averages would NOT be raised if the cutoff for Med Sci 2 was raised and your performance relative to the class would not be good enough in either situation.

 

Also, being "only 11% dumber" is actually quite significant. Imagine comparing a 79% to a 90%, or a 69% to an 80%. Considering the distribution of marks in courses, you would likely jump up 20 percentiles just by going up "only 11%"

 

Finally, your example of having 1 test to illustrate the kids that make it to Med Sci 2 is so stupid. No, 1 mistake will not make or break you. Western practically gives you a free 10-20% (30% in bio) in each of the first year science courses, so anyone struggling to hit a 60% is probably not cut out for the program anyway. Also, according to the class averages, the majority of the kids do reach the 60% cutoff. Even 1 standard deviation below (which is a whole 10-15%), and the majority of students are still making the cutoff.

 

There's no need to blame the program for your poor performance. If anything, talking about how Western's method of teaching does not suit your learning style would be much more useful than trying to scare kids away from a very fair program.

"No, 1 mistake will not make or break you."

 

Have you ever heard about analogical reasoning? There are plenty of mathematical logic courses at western. Take one or two and come back, hopefully after reaching 60% cutoff

[navr]

I don't get why you need to hate on the program so much. Clearly, the majority of students have no problem with it. Maybe your learning style is different from the way courses are taught here and that caused you do perform poorly. That does not mean the program is trying to fail you.

 

The 60% cutoff you keep talking about is the cutoff to enter Med Sci 2. Why would having a 70% cutoff increase the amount of students that enter Med Sci 2? Having a 70% would actually decrease the amount of students that progress to Med Sci 2. I think you're under the misconception that if the cutoff was 70%, you would've been able to get higher grades. The course averages are kept at around the same place each year (even though you don't believe it and have no proof to back it up), and increasing the cutoff would only decrease the number of students that progress into Med Sci 2. 

How do I know first year averages were not decreased when the cutoff for Med Sci 2 decreased? 

Class averages for 2015-16:

Bio 1001: 77%

Chem 1301: 73%

Chem 1302: 72.35%

Physics 1028: ~78% (Professor Zinke even said the course average for physics has been between 76-79% for the past 16 years)

Physics 1029: ~78%

All these courses have a standard deviation of around 10-15%, and if you're getting under a 60, that means you're doing significantly worse than your classmates, and blaming the school for it. 

How did you draw the conclusion that lowering the cutoff from Med Sci 1 to Med Sci 2 meant that course averages were lowered as well? So, even if the cutoff was 70%, you would not have made the cutoff anyways, because the class averages would NOT be raised if the cutoff for Med Sci 2 was raised and your performance relative to the class would not be good enough in either situation.

 

Also, being "only 11% dumber" is actually quite significant. Imagine comparing a 79% to a 90%, or a 69% to an 80%. Considering the distribution of marks in courses, you would likely jump up 20 percentiles just by going up "only 11%"

 

Finally, your example of having 1 test to illustrate the kids that make it to Med Sci 2 is so stupid. No, 1 mistake will not make or break you. Western practically gives you a free 10-20% (30% in bio) in each of the first year science courses, so anyone struggling to hit a 60% is probably not cut out for the program anyway. Also, according to the class averages, the majority of the kids do reach the 60% cutoff. Even 1 standard deviation below (which is a whole 10-15%), and the majority of students are still making the cutoff.

 

There's no need to blame the program for your poor performance. If anything, talking about how Western's method of teaching does not suit your learning style would be much more useful than trying to scare kids away from a very fair program.

"gives you a free 10-20%"

 

Explain free. Trust me, I didn't get anything for free. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH AT WESTERN MEDSCI, PERIOD.

[navr]

I don't get why you need to hate on the program so much. Clearly, the majority of students have no problem with it. Maybe your learning style is different from the way courses are taught here and that caused you do perform poorly. That does not mean the program is trying to fail you.

 

The 60% cutoff you keep talking about is the cutoff to enter Med Sci 2. Why would having a 70% cutoff increase the amount of students that enter Med Sci 2? Having a 70% would actually decrease the amount of students that progress to Med Sci 2. I think you're under the misconception that if the cutoff was 70%, you would've been able to get higher grades. The course averages are kept at around the same place each year (even though you don't believe it and have no proof to back it up), and increasing the cutoff would only decrease the number of students that progress into Med Sci 2. 

How do I know first year averages were not decreased when the cutoff for Med Sci 2 decreased? 

Class averages for 2015-16:

Bio 1001: 77%

Chem 1301: 73%

Chem 1302: 72.35%

Physics 1028: ~78% (Professor Zinke even said the course average for physics has been between 76-79% for the past 16 years)

Physics 1029: ~78%

All these courses have a standard deviation of around 10-15%, and if you're getting under a 60, that means you're doing significantly worse than your classmates, and blaming the school for it. 

How did you draw the conclusion that lowering the cutoff from Med Sci 1 to Med Sci 2 meant that course averages were lowered as well? So, even if the cutoff was 70%, you would not have made the cutoff anyways, because the class averages would NOT be raised if the cutoff for Med Sci 2 was raised and your performance relative to the class would not be good enough in either situation.

 

Also, being "only 11% dumber" is actually quite significant. Imagine comparing a 79% to a 90%, or a 69% to an 80%. Considering the distribution of marks in courses, you would likely jump up 20 percentiles just by going up "only 11%"

 

Finally, your example of having 1 test to illustrate the kids that make it to Med Sci 2 is so stupid. No, 1 mistake will not make or break you. Western practically gives you a free 10-20% (30% in bio) in each of the first year science courses, so anyone struggling to hit a 60% is probably not cut out for the program anyway. Also, according to the class averages, the majority of the kids do reach the 60% cutoff. Even 1 standard deviation below (which is a whole 10-15%), and the majority of students are still making the cutoff.

 

There's no need to blame the program for your poor performance. If anything, talking about how Western's method of teaching does not suit your learning style would be much more useful than trying to scare kids away from a very fair program.

"majority of students are still making the cutoff."

 

SHOW ME THE AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE OF THOSE DATA (PERCENTAGES). I CONTEND THAT YOU INVENTED THOSE DATA. I WARN ALL PROSPECTIVE APPLICANTS OUT THERE: DO THE DUE DILIGENCE. INVESTIGATE THIS MATTER THOROUGHLY. DO NOT TRUST ANYBODY. GO TO THE PRINCIPAL WITH YOUR LAWYER WHO IS SPECIALIZING IN THE PRIVACY ISSUES, AND TRY TO GET THE REAL NUMBERS. TRUST ME, THEY WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE THOSE NUMBERS TO YOU. ONCE YOU GET THEM, PUBLISH THEM HERE. DO YOURSELF A FAVOUR: FESTINA LENTE. BE CAREFUL. BE SUSPICIOUS. DO NOT MAKE THE BIGGEST MISTAKE OF YOUR LIFE!

[navr]

I don't get why you need to hate on the program so much. Clearly, the majority of students have no problem with it. Maybe your learning style is different from the way courses are taught here and that caused you do perform poorly. That does not mean the program is trying to fail you.

 

The 60% cutoff you keep talking about is the cutoff to enter Med Sci 2. Why would having a 70% cutoff increase the amount of students that enter Med Sci 2? Having a 70% would actually decrease the amount of students that progress to Med Sci 2. I think you're under the misconception that if the cutoff was 70%, you would've been able to get higher grades. The course averages are kept at around the same place each year (even though you don't believe it and have no proof to back it up), and increasing the cutoff would only decrease the number of students that progress into Med Sci 2. 

How do I know first year averages were not decreased when the cutoff for Med Sci 2 decreased? 

Class averages for 2015-16:

Bio 1001: 77%

Chem 1301: 73%

Chem 1302: 72.35%

Physics 1028: ~78% (Professor Zinke even said the course average for physics has been between 76-79% for the past 16 years)

Physics 1029: ~78%

All these courses have a standard deviation of around 10-15%, and if you're getting under a 60, that means you're doing significantly worse than your classmates, and blaming the school for it. 

How did you draw the conclusion that lowering the cutoff from Med Sci 1 to Med Sci 2 meant that course averages were lowered as well? So, even if the cutoff was 70%, you would not have made the cutoff anyways, because the class averages would NOT be raised if the cutoff for Med Sci 2 was raised and your performance relative to the class would not be good enough in either situation.

 

Also, being "only 11% dumber" is actually quite significant. Imagine comparing a 79% to a 90%, or a 69% to an 80%. Considering the distribution of marks in courses, you would likely jump up 20 percentiles just by going up "only 11%"

 

Finally, your example of having 1 test to illustrate the kids that make it to Med Sci 2 is so stupid. No, 1 mistake will not make or break you. Western practically gives you a free 10-20% (30% in bio) in each of the first year science courses, so anyone struggling to hit a 60% is probably not cut out for the program anyway. Also, according to the class averages, the majority of the kids do reach the 60% cutoff. Even 1 standard deviation below (which is a whole 10-15%), and the majority of students are still making the cutoff.

 

There's no need to blame the program for your poor performance. If anything, talking about how Western's method of teaching does not suit your learning style would be much more useful than trying to scare kids away from a very fair program.

This is a typical so called Straw Man fallacy in reasoning: you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn't endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have thereby undermined the opponent's actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the Straw Man Fallacy is caused by lying.

 

Example (a debate before the city council):

 

Opponent: Because of the killing and suffering of Indians that followed Columbus's discovery of America, the City of Berkeley should declare that Columbus Day will no longer be observed in our city.

 

Speaker: This is ridiculous, fellow members of the city council. It's not true that everybody who ever came to America from another country somehow oppressed the Indians. I say we should continue to observe Columbus Day, and vote down this resolution that will make the City of Berkeley the laughing stock of the nation.

 

The speaker has twisted what his opponent said; the opponent never said, nor even indirectly suggested, that everybody who ever came to America from another country somehow oppressed the Indians.

[Katie94]

Interesting because for 2010/11 they were: (the brackets show the change 2011 - 2016, a negative change meaning the average has increased since 2011)

 

Bio 1001: 75% (-2)

Chem 1301: 72% (-1)

Chem 1302: 74% (+1.65)

Physics 1028: 77% (-1)

Physics 1029: 78% (0)

 

Assuming a normal distribution (which is fairly valid because of the high number of students and the CLT etc. etc.) and assuming a mostly conservative SD of 15% around an average of 75%, and extending the three-sigma rule, we see that 84% of students achieve course grades > 60%.

 

That's not just fair, it's fantastic.

 

So here we've proven that course grades have not changed in the last 5 years. And that most students in 1st year achieve cut offs to continue into BMSc year 2.

 

2012/13 averages:

Bio 1001: 74

Chem 1100 (now 1301): 72

Chem 1200 (now 1302): 69

[chemiosmosis11]

is this is a troll or a vent thread? For lurkers going to western next year...from people I know western medical sciences is a great program and offers many oppurtunities, including entering medicine. Do not be intimidated by this thread and rest assured that your marks are dictated by yourself.

[InstantRamen]

Can we just say that degree difficulty is subjective?... 

[thethirdlaw]

Not true.

 

Show me the official data. In Bio 1001, for example, 66% was the mean. A big discrepancy with your data. Those data are not made public for a reason. An that reason is a simple one: it would cause MANY applicants to deflect from medsci and go to greener pastures (like york kine, for example) 

 

 

Western transcripts routinely display the class average next to an individual's course grades. They're easily available, and unfortunately (for you) the facts aren't corroborating your story. 70-75% has been the historical average for core BMSc courses in years 1-2; from my perspective 6 years ago, to my colleagues' who TA those courses today, they remain unchanged.

 

But I'm starting to understand why you didn't make it further in medsci... nothing here is your fault, just the program's eh?

[thethirdlaw]

And just a note, I do fully realize that this is a troll, but I fear that a hapless grade 12 will one day read this thread and allow it to sway their decision.

[osteogenesis]

western medsci  1st and 2nd yr is a joke 

 

3rd yr and beyond is when shit gets real and everyone sits the fuck down and stops bitching 

[navr]

western medsci  1st and 2nd yr is a joke 

 

3rd yr and beyond is when shit gets real and everyone sits the fuck down and stops bitching 

maybe 5 years ago when the cutoff was 78% and problems were simple substitutions in formulas. Nowadays, everybody in medsci study like crazy, but still only 50% will move on to 3rd year

[navr]

2012/13 averages:

Bio 1001: 74

Chem 1100 (now 1301): 72

Chem 1200 (now 1302): 69

these are prehistoric times, but it still shows downfall. A LOT OF CHANGES, ESPECIALLY IN THE 2015/2016. A SHARP INCREASE IN THE DIFFICULTY OF CHEMISTRY, BUT ALSO BIOLOGY COURSES.

 

My free estimate (again, NOBODY can show any link where these data are published. If there was such link we wouldn't argue here) is that between 2013/2014 and 2015/2016 there was ~20% increase in the difficulty of the problems given on tests and exams for chem, calc, bio, and physics

[navr]

is this is a troll or a vent thread? For lurkers going to western next year...from people I know western medical sciences is a great program and offers many oppurtunities, including entering medicine. Do not be intimidated by this thread and rest assured that your marks are dictated by yourself.

you obviously didn't read this thread. You forgot one BIG thing: everything you said is true FOR ONLY ~50% OF THE 1ST YEAR ENROLLED STUDENTS. OTHER 50% OF STUDENTS ARE OUT OF MEDSCI PROGRAM FOREVER. 50% OF THOSE 50% UNLUCKY SOULS WILL ENTER ORDINARY SCIENCE 2ND YR PROGRAM.

 

AND WITH ORDINARY SCIENCE, YOU CAN WIPE Y. A. WITH IT. THAT IS HOW VALUABLE IT IS.

 

 

Now, let me point out something else. Those "lucky" 50% of students that reach 3rd yr medsci, many of them become disillusioned with medsci. Because, there is Honours Specialization and there is shyte. If you are not in Honours Specialization, you are nobody. You are just like those 50% that failed in the 1st year medsci. You can wipe your arse with anything that is not Honours Specialization.

 

Which leads many disillusioned 3rd yr medsci students to seek greener pastures as well, many switch to business, anything tangible that will guarantee them a descent job later on. They suddenly realize they do not have GPA, they do not have academic prospect, they will never reach med school. And all of sudden, they realize they are nobody