Originally Posted by nerual

My earlier point about smaller program size was that normal distributions of marks are less common with less people in a program...but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Even mathematically, that makes sense--you can flip a coin ten times and get 9 heads, even though statistically you would expect 5. But if you flip the coin enough times, you'll eventually get closer and closer to the expected statistic.

Good point, and a perfect opportunity for a shameless math plug: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem

Originally Posted by nerual

There are definitely people in health sci who agree with a lot of the posts about lack of work ethic and all that.

I can agree with this but here's the thing, group projects negate the effects of slackers and are to some degree a source of grade inflation.

Take this example in group you have 2 slackers and 3 hard Workers. Because its group project, they will all receive the same grade, and because of those 3 hard workers the project they produce is likely to be really good regardless. So instead of 3 people getting a double digit grade, 5 will.

Okay. I would like to clarify something for the benefit of all future second years here.

Every exam will be harder than the practice unless you have a really lazy professor. Chemistry will never release the true content of previous exams and midterms.

If this Chem was hard, you will probably need to put in a lot of effort for Orgo because that course will definitely weed people out.

Biology 1M03 is really not that terrible. I mean, I know it can be a pain but ...it's not the end of the world. It's about learning how your profs test and marking and studying smart based on that. That's the advantage of Life Sci.

In terms of the group projects in Health Sci, again - benefits and downfalls. I'm sure it's hard because it is very subjective. But at the end of the day you have an idea of what your profs want as well. They won't be explicit with it. Life Sci profs aren't that explicit with it either. The job of a good professor is to make their students think - and yes, they can be incredibly tricky about their expectations.

For Health Sci, the advantage of the group projects is that you're collaborating and get to exchange ideas with equally motivated and driven individuals. I would imagine that the implicit message to those marking schemes is to realise that and play to each individual's strengths. Thus, I would (if a TA in that program) expect my students to continually change and adapt their strengths in group dynamics to highlight what they're best at based on the situation they're given to come up with consistently good results each time.

Both are challenging.

Life Sci is challenging, Health Sci is challenging. It's different kinds of challenging. I like Chemistry. It's challenging. I like Biology. It's challenging. Different kinds. Neither is *technically* superior. But I'm biased and prefer Chem because I feel its more rewarding and I learn more cool stuff. Now you may say "Well, Chemistry is the same stuff over and over" and I may say "Biology is just mass memorization".

Before anybody else gets incredibly defensive...perhaps you may want to consider that the dilemma between programs that I've highlighted (Chem vs. Bio) is perhaps what you also are experiencing with Health Sci vs. Life Sci.

No one is better than the other objectively.
It's what you make of it.
Yes, 26% is pretty ridiculous but that's more about university spending. There's an easy way to get that number lower - be more selective OR...introduce more criteria. It's not some Health Sci's fault. It's the administration that you wish to have this conversation with. So I encourage you to have that conversation if that's what you feel passionate about.

In regards to difficulty of each program, the majority of what I'm seeing is two groups of people relentlessly defending their opinion, which seems to consistently be that every aspect of their program is (in some way) more difficult than the other. There are definitely a few people being rational. I agree with what Mahratta said and Yoni summed up all the issues with the original post.

The fact is, there are benefits and weaknesses of each teaching style, and those are similarly reflected in the ways grades are assigned and the difficulty of different types of courses.

I hope people realize, even if they don't concede publicly, that there are aspects to both HTH SCI courses, and those taken by Sciences students (whether they be PSYCH, PHYSICS, CHEM, BIO, etc, etc.) that are more or less difficult than the other. It doesn't just go one way.

Edit: Bushra beat me to it.

Originally Posted by MichaelScarn

Fair point, but people also have to keep in mind that just because you've talked to or seen a few health scis do some things, doesn't mean you know the entire program.

Pretty sure you and Lauren were arguing the same points.
"A few opinions or a sample may not be representative of the population. The population can be diverse and dynamic. What the population thinks or feel or others think/feel about it may not necessarily reflect the truth."

i am a healthsci alumni and i loved the program with all my heart. you should find inspiration within each other and embrace your inner pride and strangle it to death. read the kama sutra and try the positions with just your hand/fingers. enjoy life and don't fight, for ghandi once stopped eating to end a war. i will stop eating if i have to, in order to make you all stop.

Originally Posted by goodnews.inc

Pretty sure you and Lauren were arguing the same points.
"A few opinions or a sample may not be representative of the population. The population can be diverse and dynamic. What the population thinks or feel or others think/feel about it may not necessarily reflect the truth."

I know, I just wanted to make sure that both sides of that point were emphasized.

Originally Posted by MichaelScarn

Fair point, but people also have to keep in mind that just because you've talked to or seen a few health scis do some things, doesn't mean you know the entire program.

That was kind of my point. You posted earlier that "Most of the people commenting have only experienced one side of this argument and thus are arguing based on hearsay." I would argue that EVERYONE here has only experienced one side of the argument...and that their experiences aren't hearsay.

Just because you've been in both programs, doesn't mean your opinion is more valid. Different people can be in the same situation and have completely different takes on it. That's the point I'm trying to make. I keep offering counter arguments because these should exist. It shouldn't be one-sided. Your opinion exists and is valid, but there are also other people who have also experienced the program who have opposite and equally valid opinions. Don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you has no idea what they're talking about and can't possibly understand the situation better than you can. Your view is still only one side, just like theirs is.

(Note that was not meant as a personal attack, I'm just using you as an example since you brought it up)

Okay. I would like to clarify something for the benefit of all future second years here.

Every exam will be harder than the practice unless you have a really lazy professor. Chemistry will never release the true content of previous exams and midterms.

If this Chem was hard, you will probably need to put in a lot of effort for Orgo because that course will definitely weed people out.[/quote]

chem department releases old midterms and exams of past 3-5 years.

Biology 1M03 is really not that terrible. I mean, I know it can be a pain but ...it's not the end of the world. It's about learning how your profs test and marking and studying smart based on that. That's the advantage of Life Sci.

This year it was actually bad. And I mean real bad. No point in complaining now, but it was a tough, tough course this time around.

Originally Posted by Aeria

I can agree with this but here's the thing, group projects negate the effects of slackers and are to some degree a source of grade inflation.

Take this example in group you have 2 slackers and 3 hard Workers. Because its group project, they will all receive the same grade, and because of those 3 hard workers the project they produce is likely to be really good regardless. So instead of 3 people getting a double digit grade, 5 will.

I completely agree and that's a serious problem with group work in any setting. A program with lots of group work such as health sci will end up with more grade inflation because of it, even if an equal proportion of students in the program are slackers relative to another program with less group projects.

I think the problem is the way the program is set up, moreso than the students in it. It kind of encourages slacking, since there are always going to be hard workers to pick up the slack.

Originally Posted by Silver

If this Chem was hard, you will probably need to put in a lot of effort for Orgo because that course will definitely weed people out.

chem department releases old midterms and exams of past 3-5 years.



This year it was actually bad. And I mean real bad. No point in complaining now, but it was a tough, tough course this time around.[/quote]

Every year says that about Chem.
They won't release the actual material.
They may release some questions or modify questions or make them simpler or easier. They will never release questions of the same difficulty. That would compromise the integrity of the exam. If they were fine with releasing exams after they were done, why not let students writign deferred exams take those pages home when they use Scantrons?

Every year is very challenging for the people in it. I don't diminish that fact. But it gets tougher. The good thing is that you know and can really boost your efforts and study techniques to adapt. That's really all anybody can do at the end of the day.

Originally Posted by Aeria

Wow, that is the exact opposite of what goes on. You ask a TA what they are looking for in HTH SCI and they'll tell you "Whatever you feel is best for your learning", you get you assignment/essay/project back and you're just devastated over the grade because they'll never share the secret rubric in their head. Its too "LifeSci" to do something like being fair and sharing your expectations for the course and making a marking scheme public. Like I said before, profs in LifeSci courses are so incredibly fair and reasonable compared to what goes on in HTH SCI.

Any evidence or sources that you have that can back up your statement?

Okay, I admit that the health sci do not have a clear marking scheme and I deleted that part of my post after I realized it. However, look at the amount of scholarships available to health sci, the opportunities available for health sci, the amount of benefit health sci gets (a cadaver lab, a game room, and i heard you guys have a database available to share past exams, etc...) NOT to mention the amount of research money that goes into renovating health sci faculties. The life sci building looks pathetic compare to the health sci building. As I said, you guys work hard, however, my original point was that I believe it is ridiculous for 25% of the faculty to get 11.7+ (which is rly high)
Ivy league schools have a much "rigorous" application process since I applied to one. You actually need essays, alumni interview, reference letters, SAT, grades, SAT IIs, a lot of ECs, while health sci just need to answer 4 questions and a grade above 90% (these marks vary a lot across diff schools). Ivy leagues schools are suspected of grade inflation where their class average is an A- /B+. If you compare that to health sci grades, then it would be like germany currency inflation after WWI.

Originally Posted by nerual

That was kind of my point. You posted earlier that "Most of the people commenting have only experienced one side of this argument and thus are arguing based on hearsay." I would argue that EVERYONE here has only experienced one side of the argument...and that their experiences aren't hearsay.

Just because you've been in both programs, doesn't mean your opinion is more valid. Different people can be in the same situation and have completely different takes on it. That's the point I'm trying to make. I keep offering counter arguments because these should exist. It shouldn't be one-sided. Your opinion exists and is valid, but there are also other people who have also experienced the program who have opposite and equally valid opinions. Don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you has no idea what they're talking about and can't possibly understand the situation better than you can. Your view is still only one side, just like theirs is.

(Note that was not meant as a personal attack, I'm just using you as an example since you brought it up)

I'm not saying that their experiences are hearsay, many people from both faculties have raised valid points about their own faculties and that's completely fine. What I'm saying is hearsay are those comments directed against the opposing faculty when they themselves have very little experience to base those statements on. I don't think it's enough to say that you've seen some health scis do this, or you've heard some life scis do that.

Every year says that about Chem.
They won't release the actual material.
They may release some questions or modify questions or make them simpler or easier. They will never release questions of the same difficulty. That would compromise the integrity of the exam. If they were fine with releasing exams after they were done, why not let students writign deferred exams take those pages home when they use Scantrons?

Every year is very challenging for the people in it. I don't diminish that fact. But it gets tougher. The good thing is that you know and can really boost your efforts and study techniques to adapt. That's really all anybody can do at the end of the day.

I wouldn't suspect the chem department would deceive us like that. They gave us multiple exams and midterms with the dates on them...I doubt they would modify them. Profs even announce 'old exams are up now'...why would they lie about releasing old exams? And they probably don't let people take them home because of the others who deferred the exam. Deferred exam I suspect would have similar, if not the same questions.