Overall, Health Scis have much higher entrance averages (the majority of the Faculty wins the President's Award for 95+ entrance average) so you may know a few who have higher entrance averages but they are the exception, not the majority.

Cutoff for health sci is 90. Life sci is 88. I don't see much of a difference.

Lol. so these threads come up annually eh.

Here's my take on the issue.

I am in BHSc myself and have to tell you that you can't really be sure about something that you have never experienced. Personally, I agree that there are some courses, which are "abused" by certain BHSc students. In other words, they BS their way through and pull good marks. However, this is not representative of all the BHSc students and people should stop stereotype hth scis based on this relatively false image.
There are lots of students who struggle and work hard to attain good marks in "hard" courses (the courses other people consider "hard"). Let's use first year as an example. One of you mentioned that Bio 1M03 takes up lots of your time with essays and what not. Same with our cell bio, HTHSCI 1I06. It consists of group work, for which each meeting can last for more than 6 hours. The projects are not easy and therefore I don't think my first year was a breeze. In fact, I spent countless number of hours on this course along with all other courses, such as inquiry (it involved lots of group work as well) and my non-hth sci electives, such as math 1aa3 or physics 1b03. I think I achieved pretty good marks and deserved whatever distinction I got.
Same goes with second year or third year.

In any given programs, there are bad apples, which just take advantage of the system. I have seen several hthsci kids who just take BS courses and march their way into some med schools. Also, I have seen life science kids who take easy ways out (by taking "bird" courses). It seems like these bad apples somehow have loud voices and become symbols of a program.

So, the bottom line is. Stop making stereotypes and picking on bhsc kids. There are kids, who are not as outspoken but are hardworking in the program.

Unfortunately, it seems like talk of how hard people work, whether or not they deserve it, etc. has crept into this (probably because of the OPs tone).

I still think there is something to be said about the numbers here, for interest's sake. Personal issues about hard work aside, health science clearly has a much higher average, and far more cash awards per student, than most faculties.

If the healthsci forumers would rather continue to respond to the personal comments, then so be it, but nothing will come out of that. Anyway, this isn't unique to healthsci, but is true of artsci as well.

The obvious explanation is that artsci and healthsci are Mac's flagship programs, so there's a combination of smart students and a bit of bureaucratic assistance. Whether or not that's the case, I don't know. Personally, I know a few artsci students in artsci and math, and they are very hard-working and tend to do well. However, they do get many perks that non-artscis don't, for instance, many more opportunities for TAing in undergrad.

Originally Posted by Silver

Cutoff for health sci is 90. Life sci is 88. I don't see much of a difference.

The accepted average is much higher. Proof:

I counted quickly but I see 110 names there under Health Sci. There were about 160 who came into the program that year.

Originally Posted by nerual

I do find, though, that the stereotype about health sci holds true for about half of the people in the program, while saying nothing about the other half. I have a number of examples I can point to to back that up, but that's really not the point of this thread.

Please, enlighten us with your examples. And what exactly is the point of this thread then?

Originally Posted by gggggg

Well, I am in life sci and I can guarantee you that in my first year, my easiest courses were intro chem which i got 12s on both. I used to think health sci kids do work rly hard, however, these numbers and averages are ridiculous. You guys consistently get the end of bellcurve because honestly, chemistry is probably one of the few courses you guys have an exam on and you guys have much more time to study for it than we, life scis do. I had 3 exams (kine,chem and psych) in one week, while you guys only have probably 2 exams per term max. We have courses like biology 1m03 which consumes our time completely (essays, projects, readings,etc...). The cutoff for life sci is 88 for high school students, and you guys say you work rly hard, which I do believe. However, I know a lot of people who have rly high avg in high school (higher than most health scis) but I do not see 25% of them getting 11.7+ ... From the health scis I have seen, they OBVIOUSLY work less than life scis and since you guys focus more on group work, there is much less stress on the individual. McMaster favours health scis way too much and I think it is time to pay more attention to the life scis, which makes up more of the student body.

I'm in the unique position of having experienced life science in first year and health science in second year so I'm able to give a somewhat better perspective than the one you so eloquently provided. Although first year life science was admittedly a lot of work, compared to second year in health science, it was nothing. You say that since we focus on group work, there is much less stress on the individual. You could not be more wrong. Group work takes up all of your time, in and out of group meetings. You're expected to be constantly researching and reading up on articles, so that you have something to show at your group meetings and during class. So no, health scis do not "OBVIOUSLY" work less than life scis.

Originally Posted by RememberTwce

I was in Life Sci and personally, Chem was one of the harder courses. I can also tell you that having less exams just means that there's more work during the semester. I got through Life Sci by studying for a few days before the hell week that contained all of my midterms, then coasted through the rest.

If you think chem is one of the harder courses, then I don't know how you survived physics 1b03, kinesiology or even psych. However, your year is probably different and therefore I think u probably had a much harder prof/year.

Originally Posted by RememberTwce

You're joking right? BIO 1M03 forced you to memorize a bunch of stupid and regurgitate it onto each midterm. How is that difficult? And we had 1 project in that course, don't remember this essay you're referring to, and no readings outside of studying.

We had a new 1M03 prof this year and he was very difficult. In fact they had to take out questions to boost the class avg (which btw is very low). You probably had kajiura or dushoff, since the previous midterms were comparatively a lot easier.

Originally Posted by RememberTwce

Overall, Health Scis have much higher entrance averages (the majority of the Faculty wins the President's Award for 95+ entrance average) so you may know a few who have higher entrance averages but they are the exception, not the majority.

High school marks means nothing. They do not reflect university grades at all.

Originally Posted by RememberTwce

You start off with some nice selection bias then finish by chastising group work, which I personally know there isn't much of in Life Sci, so you're not really speaking of experience.

No, there isn't much group work in life sci (only bio and psych group projects). However, I heard from my friend, and I don't know if this is true or not. A lot of Health sci ppl do not do well in med school because they have not experienced the vigorous lecture style curriculum that is present in preclerkship (again, this is pure rumour so I apologize if it is completely false)

Originally Posted by WalkerBlue

When everyone is special, nobody is special.

You know what’s special? The averages in Health Science.

However, perhaps I’m missing something. Let me know if you catch something.

It looks like there are roughly 750 students in the BHSc in any given year. Of these 750 students, a total of 118 of them received a senate scholarship, and 45 of them received a Harry Lyman scholarship. The University dictates that these students should be somewhere in the top 10-15% of their faculty. However, I’ve overestimated the number of eligible students, because grads aren’t considered (correct?). So, I’ll shave 150 students from the earlier estimate- 600 are eligible. Of these 600 eligible students, roughly 160 of them were given scholarships. That’s the top 26%. So, the cut-off for the top 26% is 11.7.

So, the top quarter of the program averages a perfect year. If these kids are brilliant enough to dictate this type of preferential treatment, they’d have no problem beating the curve in courses with the masses. Of course, they wouldn’t, not nearly to the same extent.

So, at the end of four years, you have a piece of paper that says you were brilliant in high school.

What a joke. I hope you aren't my future doctor.

Is someone a little butthurt that they're not playing the system right? BHSc students may not "work as hard" as your life sciences student, nor do they have to take the same courses as life sciences. Deal with it, life isn't fair and you play the cards you're dealt. If you have a problem with the program, that's your issue not mine.

Fact is, Health Sciences has its advantages, your problem for not getting in and using them.

Also, I look forward to practicing LPs on you.

Originally Posted by MichaelScarn

Please, enlighten us with your examples. And what exactly is the point of this thread then?

The OPs reason for creating the thread aside, we can salvage a point from it.

First, why are the grades in smaller faculties so much higher? Second, why do smaller faculties receive so many more financial rewards per student than larger faculties?

Is this fair? I think this is a good question, and there are points to be made on either side.

Originally Posted by SUPERCYCLE

Also, I look forward to practicing LPs on you.

Wow, that was uncalled for...

If this thread continues to be personally insulting, accusatory or promotes personal attacks that do not contribute to a healthy intellectual discussion/debate, it will be closed.

Originally Posted by lt93

Wow, that was uncalled for...

After another beer, I realize that this thread has enlightened me to the evils of Health Sciences.

Health Sci is a terrible program that forces free food and choice upon us. I have to actually think and make decisions concerning my work? I just want to memorize and regurgitate information in my courses, none of this freethinking, self-guided, group directed, and facilitated inquiry learning crap! 90% of my year wants to get into medical school, so much so that they don't trust anyone else, can't risk partying for dropping their grades, and finally group projects become more "I like your idea, but it's terrible, let's use mine!"

What is Health Sciences? It's a cult I tell you! Once you get in you never leave. They call it a wolf pack, or one giant family... but really it's a scam. In first year we experience inquiry, and the wonders of "Hey you can do whatever you want in this class, BUT I'm going to judge you and force you into awkward situations with your peers". Inquiry encourages students to rat on other students, thereby creating this atmosphere of suspicion.

Ever seen a bunch of Health Sci friends laughing and having fun? Sure, but LOOK AGAIN in their eyes are pure and unrestrained evil. It's a look of, "I will find some way to take you down and rip you to pieces before you do the same to me" or a look of "If you screw up this group project again (aka don't do things my way), I will tear you limb from limb"

I could go on and on with this rant but in the end Health Sciences is like the Hunger Games. It's just of matter of playing everything and everyone around you so that you win.

Originally Posted by dumbconsumer

I would say something like "Haters gonna Hate" or "Why can't we all just get along" but this is just sad.

Most of the criticism I've seen of Health Science comes from people who have little to no idea about the program because, well, they aren't in the program. Not all of the criticism though, and I often find that the criticism that I find most agreeable is the ones from people with proper perspective.

I know I'm resorting to a lowly form of argument, instead of directly refuting comments at their core, I'm calling into fact the validity of the speakers, but honestly, if people are worried about the marks they are receiving, they should be complaining to their own faculties instead of calling into question the work ethic of those in other faculties.

I've been in life and health science, both have their advantages and disadvantages. All I know is that I did well in both because I worked hard and I feel my marks were deserved. To bring into argument receiving "higher marks" in health science, one would have to consider individuals that do no work at all. Do they still get 9s and 10s, even with no work done? I really can't say. Honestly, just as it has been said, as entry into the program tries to get individuals which will be working towards their grade, you won't really come across many of these "no work" individuals to test this out. this entry system is mostly successful.

If I'm ever a doctor, I strongly encourage you to look at the degree on my wall and leave if you're inclined to do so. This will be beneficial for all parties involved in the doctor-patient dynamic.

Good day.

I disagree with the bolded part. I've actually had this conversation with a few people who have since graduated from health sci, as well as with a prof involved in the program, and they agree, the system of allowing people into health sci doesn't do a very good job of selecting for the type of people they want, the type of people who would benefit most from the set-up of the program.

Our conversation really didn't touch on transfers at all, and the application process is somewhat different than for direct entry from high school, but I think at that point, you have a better idea of what health sci is like and if it's a good program for you.

Edit: Also, I've spoken with health sci transfers who found life sci in first year much more work than health sci in second year. Maybe it depends how you learn best. Maybe the people I'm referring to are the slackers Idk. But there are both sides to that argument too.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

The OPs reason for creating the thread aside, we can salvage a point from it.

First, why are the grades in smaller faculties so much higher? Second, why do smaller faculties receive so many more financial rewards per student than larger faculties?

Is this fair? I think this is a good question, and there are points to be made on either side.

A fair question, but a question that I doubt any individual on MI can answer accurately, regardless of the numbers being thrown carelessly around. I think it was mentioned below that if someone has such a big problem with this, why not email the faculties directly? Most of the comments I'm seeing on this thread are anecdotal and have practically no validity. If someone does care enough to email the faculty, let us know what was said. Much better than posting on a student forum and getting nowhere.

Originally Posted by RememberTwce

The accepted average is much higher. Proof:

I counted quickly but I see 110 names there under Health Sci. There were about 160 who came into the program that year.

Hey RememberTwce,

Would you happen to have the one for 2011 as well that you could post? (Or anyone else who has it?) Thanks!

Originally Posted by gggggg

If you think chem is one of the harder courses, then I don't know how you survived physics 1b03, kinesiology or even psych. However, your year is probably different and therefore I think u probably had a much harder prof/year.

That's your personal opinion and while I agree that 1B03 was difficult, I thought PSYCH 1X03 and 1XX3 were fairly straightforward and easier than CHEM 1A03/1AA3. There are people that would agree with me, and others that don't so I don't think that's a very good argument on your part. Also, I don't see how you can draw any conclusions about professors and relative difficulty based on your initial statement which is an opinion, not a fact.

Originally Posted by gggggg

We had a new 1M03 prof this year and he was very difficult. In fact they had to take out questions to boost the class avg (which btw is very low). You probably had kajiura or dushoff, since the previous midterms were comparatively a lot easier.

Again, you're drawing conclusions about my profs based on your personal experiences in the course. And I would argue that the material and format of the course (which from what I've heard, has not changed) forces students to memorize to do well.

Originally Posted by gggggg

High school marks means nothing. They do not reflect university grades at all.

Obviously they can't be used in all cases, but considering both reflect the intelligence of an individual (not perfectly obviously), then they can indeed be used to reflect university marks. With more information you could probably draw better conclusions about the averages in each faculty and how they change from HS-->University but we don't have that data so high school averages will have to do.

Originally Posted by gggggg

No, there isn't much group work in life sci (only bio and psych group projects). However, I heard from my friend, and I don't know if this is true or not. A lot of Health sci ppl do not do well in med school because they have not experienced the vigorous lecture style curriculum that is present in preclerkship (again, this is pure rumour so I apologize if it is completely false)

Hearing something from a friend isn't a very good basis for an argument. Using an anecdote without supporting evidence is much worse.