Did Western Just Change Their 2Nd Degree Policies?

[not my real name]

Assuming that Ottawa looks at 3 years instead of 2, did anyone choose to do a their 2nd degree in 3 years? It might seem more viable now since it would be much easier to work out prerequisites and still satisfy the 3/5 rule.

I did for pretty much those reasons... Doing my degree in 2 years would also have been pretty tricky in terms of course progression and prerequisites. At the end of the day 3 years didn't seem like all that much more than 2.

[m30wc0w]

If I am understanding this then it is actually all 4 years that would be considered senior years.

 

If so I have no idea why you would want to graduate at all. The best way to have years at the senior level is to be in a program with senior level courses.

That seems very strange. I'm not getting that impression at all from what they've written: Course load and course level requirements for the second degree are analogous to the requirements of the first degree

 

And these are the course level requirements: 

• In your 1st year of study 3 of 5 full course equivalents must be at the 1st year-level or above ( A )
• In your 2nd year of study 3 of 5 full course equivalents must be at the 2nd year-level or above ( B )
• In your 3rd year of study 3 of 5 full course equivalents must be at the 3rd year-level or above ( C )
• In your 4th year of study 3 of 5 full course equivalents must be at the 3rd year-level or above. Note: A mix of 3rd and 4th year courses to make up the 3 full course equivalents is acceptable in the fourth year ( D )
• If you do a 5th year of study prior to graduating, 3 of 5 full course equivalents must be at the 3rd year-level or above (as for the fourth year) ( E )

 

• Course load requirements are of course 5 full-year courses (1 of which can be pass-fail)

So if the analogy holds, then:

The first year of the second degree is analogous to the first year of the first degree, with requirements A.

The second year of the second degree is analogous to the second year of the first degree, with requirements B.

The third year of the second degree is analogous to the third year of the first degree, with requirements C.

The fourth year of the second degree is analogous to the fourth year of the first degree, with requirements D.

The fifth year prior to graduating from the second degree is analogous to the fifth year prior to graduating from the first degree, with requirements E.

 

But I have the sad feeling that if it was this simple so many people wouldn't be screwed over... tell me I'm wrong?

[IMislove]

^ that's what I think, as mine is a 2 year degree, with ALL mandatory courses, no electives so I get no choice.

[IMislove]

As for the people wondering about Ottawa, it's fine as they look at your LAST 3 years. I emailed and confirmed with them about this already, so the 2 years of the 2 year degree, and the 4th year from your first degree.

[happypumpkin]

Hey guys! I'm planning on starting my second degree this fall (2016) and it will take me approx 2 years +summers, to finish. So clearly i will be applying under the new regulations. I'll be at Ryerson and their course codes go all the way up to 900s. 3/5 of my courses will always be 300+ though. Any idea if i'll be eligible?  (This is my first time posting so sorry if i sound like a noob...i just feel like my dreams of western med have just been crushed :'( 

[_ _]

Hey guys! I'm planning on starting my second degree this fall (2016) and it will take me approx 2 years +summers, to finish. So clearly i will be applying under the new regulations. I'll be at Ryerson and their course codes go all the way up to 900s. 3/5 of my courses will always be 300+ though. Any idea if i'll be eligible?  (This is my first time posting so sorry if i sound like a noob...i just feel like my dreams of western med have just been crushed :'( 

I don't know anything about Ryerson's course code system, but I would say that if you have any doubts at all about your degree meeting Western's requirements I would contact Western directly. Asking here is a good start, but it seems like there's a bit of ambiguity in the second degree procedures, and you really don't want to risk anything

[pulsar93]

That seems very strange. I'm not getting that impression at all from what they've written: Course load and course level requirements for the second degree are analogous to the requirements of the first degree

 

And these are the course level requirements: 

• In your 1st year of study 3 of 5 full course equivalents must be at the 1st year-level or above ( A )
• In your 2nd year of study 3 of 5 full course equivalents must be at the 2nd year-level or above ( B )
• In your 3rd year of study 3 of 5 full course equivalents must be at the 3rd year-level or above ( C )
• In your 4th year of study 3 of 5 full course equivalents must be at the 3rd year-level or above. Note: A mix of 3rd and 4th year courses to make up the 3 full course equivalents is acceptable in the fourth year ( D )
• If you do a 5th year of study prior to graduating, 3 of 5 full course equivalents must be at the 3rd year-level or above (as for the fourth year) ( E )

 

• Course load requirements are of course 5 full-year courses (1 of which can be pass-fail)

So if the analogy holds, then:

The first year of the second degree is analogous to the first year of the first degree, with requirements A.

The second year of the second degree is analogous to the second year of the first degree, with requirements B.

The third year of the second degree is analogous to the third year of the first degree, with requirements C.

The fourth year of the second degree is analogous to the fourth year of the first degree, with requirements D.

The fifth year prior to graduating from the second degree is analogous to the fifth year prior to graduating from the first degree, with requirements E.

 

But I have the sad feeling that if it was this simple so many people wouldn't be screwed over... tell me I'm wrong?

 

Ok, I just started my 2nd degree so I figured I'd finally contact Western for some clarification and this is the response I got:

 

The year of study depends on how many years it will take you to complete the second undergraduate degree.  The second degree must be equivalent to a four-year undergraduate degree, but it doesn't necessarily have to take you four years to complete. 

 

If the second degree is taken over the course of four years, then each year is considered in the same manner as the first degree (for example in the second year of your new degree you need to have 3 of 5 full course equivalents at the second-year level or above, in the third and fourth year 3 of 5 courses must be at the third-year level or above).

 

If, however, you can complete your second undergraduate degree in only two years, we would consider those years at the third and fourth year level (because you would have received transfer credits for the first two years of the degree).  In this case, each of those years must have 3 of 5 full course equivalents at the third-year level or above.

 

I hope that answers your question.  Please feel free to call the office if you require further clarification.

 

 

[SunAndMoon]

The assumptions that the courses credited are 1st and 2nd year level is wrong. The decision that many people who decided to undertake a second undergraduate degree was influenced by the requirement that two years are sufficient.

 

As such, attempts to credit courses were done in such a way that you could graduate in TWO years, which means you credited anything that would lower your credit count to 60 (15 each semester), while still following the 3/5 above 200+ level. Which means you could credit 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, or 1000000 level courses if you needed to, to make sure that:
(A) You finished your degree in 2 years (Queen's, Western, McGill, etc.)

( You had 3/5 above 200+

 

Changing the rules for people who have followed their PREVIOUS rules is basically rejecting them on the basis that they abided by their policies.

[rmorelan]

The assumptions that the courses credited are 1st and 2nd year level is wrong. The decision that many people who decided to undertake a second undergraduate degree was influenced by the requirement that two years are sufficient.

 

As such, attempts to credit courses were done in such a way that you could graduate in TWO years, which means you credited anything that would lower your credit count to 60 (15 each semester), while still following the 3/5 above 200+ level. Which means you could credit 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, or 1000000 level courses if you needed to, to make sure that:

(A) You finished your degree in 2 years (Queen's, Western, McGill, etc.)

( You had 3/5 above 200+

 

Changing the rules for people who have followed their PREVIOUS rules is basically rejecting them on the basis that they abided by their policies.

 

I get their logic - if you really already have a degree then to properly compare you to other students you shouldn't just be able to do a standard first year in a program etc and have it count the same. Some one with 4 years+ experience already would be better student.

 

The problem is rules that change mid stride, and ones that aren't 100% clearly posted somewhere. Nothing ramps up the paranoia faster than thinking there area  bunch of hidden rules that are changing all the time. 

[SunAndMoon]

I get their logic - if you really already have a degree then to properly compare you to other students you shouldn't just be able to do a standard first year in a program etc and have it count the same. Some one with 4 years+ experience already would be better student.

 

The problem is rules that change mid stride, and ones that aren't 100% clearly posted somewhere. Nothing ramps up the paranoia faster than thinking there area  bunch of hidden rules that are changing all the time. 

 

I understand the desire to uniformize criteria for all applicants. That being said it seems that they have not run into that issue WRT MCAT scores, or found a way to go through the process as fairly as possible. However students should not be blamed for (1) having followed rules precedently set forth by the school and (2) following a curriculum the only way that you can follow it. A grandfather clause is the only solution to a drastic change like this. The frustration is amplified by the fact that this change is justified by a false assumption. No, credited courses are not necessarily first and second year. I credited what I could so I could graduate in two years. 

 

The other assumption, being that higher-level courses can somehow for all intents and purposes be considered to be more difficult than introductory courses, is arguable. After 5 years of undergraduate coursework this has not consistently been my experience, but that's another debate.

 

If the concern is fairness, their decision is the wrong one. 

[t0ny]

I still don't get how the Western policy makes any sense. My first UG degree was in the chemistry field, whereas my second UG degree was more Anatomy/Physiology. In this program, the Musculoskeletal Anatomy class and the Systemic/Viceral Anatomy class have a 200 level course code at my University, as did my two physiology classes, my emergency care class and others. 

 

My issue is:

 

1) At another University, some of these courses have a 300 level course code. So I would be punished simply based on how my program assigns the codes?

2) It would be physically impossible to do the program without doing the above mentioned courses, so how can I be expected to have only 300/400 levels courses in my first year?

 

 

This way of thinking doesn't seem to add up...

[RedLily]

Many 1st and 2nd year courses have grading schemes they have to follow (only a certain percentage of students can be in the 'A' range, 'B' range, etc.), and I find some of the intro courses cover such a broad range of topics that they can be more difficult than upper year courses (Intro Psych was a paaaiiiin imo). Some of the courses I did best in were upper year courses- while you could argue that this was because as an upper year you 'know how to be a student,' it's also true that the methods of testing students aren't as standardized, and also allow for more students to be in the upper grade ranges.

 

Ideally they should have posted about the change in advance so that people in the midst of second degrees aren't screwed over, since many 2nd degrees, by nature of the required courses, make you have to take less than a 300+ level course load in the first year (and these 'mandatory 100 and 200 level courses are often more difficult than elective/birdy 300 and 400 level courses). And it doesn't seem right to force people to make a 2nd degree three years just to fill it with upper year courses to adjust the weighting. If you can do it in 2 years, why would you want to pay for 3?

 

This doesn't affect me, but as a 2nd degreer just GRINDS MY GEARS lol