It's funny how everybody gets so defensive here regardless of what program they're in.

I think Health Science students work less hard than they say online (seriously, someone said they have meetings 15-18 hours a day? Absurd. If you need to meet 18 hours a day you are doing something wrong).

On the other hand, Life Sci students think Health Sci's work less hard than they actually do. It's probably closer to a middle ground.

All these anecdotes about taking Chem vs a Health Sci course and how one is harder or one requires more effort are completely useless. As Lauren said earlier, it's way too subjective for that. I got a much, much lower mark in first year anthro than I did in Orgo 1 and 2. That doesn't mean I think humanities are more difficult than organic chemistry. It doesn't mean anything. There are too many variables to compare like that.

Similarly, the reason why so many health scis do well is probably a mix - you're taking the best high school students (or at least very good ones), and mixing that with a bit of help from extra resources and slightly inflated grades. It's not just because of the grades, and it's not just because you got a good average in high school.

Another component that people aren't mentioning, I feel, is the camaraderie between health sci students compared to say, Life Sci ones. Since everyone is helping each other and working together in group projects all day they probably benefit more from each other's presence. On the other hand, in life sci there isn't too much of that, you're pretty much on your own.

Overall though I think this argument is pointless because it's not particularly difficult to do well regardless of your program. It's childish to blame another faculty on your own poor performance. Who cares whether Health Sci's get all 12.0's? How does that affect you in another program? Just do your work and try to do as well as you can.

Originally Posted by Philipp31

How is this relevant in the slightest? This actually has nothing to do with anything. There is honestly so much ignorance in this particular sentence it hurts my head. Please, please, please think before you start saying garbage like this.

I interpreted that as support for the health sci faculty having more money for the BHSc program than there is for life sci...which I agree with. And having more money explains why more health sci students would be able to receive the scholarships that this thread was originally about--there's more money available to give them to more students.
I don't know if that's actually what was meant by the post, but that's how I interpreted it.

Originally Posted by gggggg

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.

Yes I completely agree with this. I don't for a second doubt that most of the Health Sci students are very hard working but it is true that the administration gives the Health Sci program preferential treatment. Just like it also gives preferential treatment to Life Science over let's say Humanities. If there was ever one con I would have to give a prospective McMaster student, it would be just that. Of course this is not the fault of the students.

An other thing that bothers me about Health Sci is the application process. There are so many qualified people who apply but at a certain point it really just comes down to luck.

And something else to add about grade inflation in any small program like iSci, ArtSci, HthSci etc. is that it is caused by the small, tight-knit community, namely:

1) Collaboration in non-HTH SCI courses - take Orgo for instance, Hth Scis will collaborate to do the assignments, prelabs and they will share past tests among themselves. You can see the advantage here.

2) Expectations- the high achievers in Hth Sci will set the standards. For instance, the only acceptable grade in Hth Sci is 12 or maybe an 11. So you work really hard to catch up to your peers so that if anyone asks, you can say you got a 12 in the course, you definitely aren't proud to say that you got a low grade. Its all about meeting the expectations of your peers.

So its the advantages of being in a small program with a high proportion of over-achievers that leads to an environment conducive to such success.

Originally Posted by lt93

Yes I completely agree with this. I don't for a second doubt that most of the Health Sci students are very hard working but it is true that the administration gives the Health Sci program preferential treatment. Just like it also gives preferential treatment to Life Science over let's say Humanities. If there was ever one con I would have to give a prospective McMaster student, it would be just that. Of course this is not the fault of the students.

An other thing that bothers me about Health Sci is the application process. There are so many qualified people who apply but at a certain point it really just comes down to luck.

If you think Health Sci applications are about luck just wait until medical school applications :(

Originally Posted by Aeria

And something else to add about grade inflation in any small program like iSci, ArtSci, HthSci etc. is that it is caused by the small, tight-knit community, namely:

1) Collaboration in non-HTH SCI courses - take Orgo for instance, Hth Scis will collaborate to do the assignments, prelabs and they will share past tests among themselves. You can see the advantage here.

2) Expectations- the high achievers in Hth Sci will set the standards. For instance, the only acceptable grade in Hth Sci is 12 or maybe an 11. So you work really hard to catch up to your peers so that if anyone asks, you can say you got a 12 in the course, you definitely aren't proud to say that you got a low grade. Its all about meeting the expectations of your peers.

So its the advantages of being in a small program with a high proportion of over-achievers that leads to an environment conducive to such success.

I found this to be completely detrimental and it's one of the aspects of the program that I don't like, especially when BHSc emphasizes learning over everything else. However, more than anything else, it's the mentality of students coming in to the program that causes it and not the faculty. That's my take on it, at least.

1) Collaboration in non-HTH SCI courses - take Orgo for instance, Hth Scis will collaborate to do the assignments, prelabs and they will share past tests among themselves. You can see the advantage here.

LOL yea. I did find a google document this past summer term where only health scis were given it and working on the orgo assignment only with one another lol.

Originally Posted by Silver

LOL yea. I did find a google document this past summer term where only health scis were given it and working on the orgo assignment only with one another lol.

That's because a Health Sci created the document and posted it on LearnLink to discuss with others. It wasn't given to them, nor did it give them any advantage because if they weren't online, they'd be together working on it anyways. You can't blame the students for working together, because people in all faculties do it. It's just that Health Sci promotes collaboration and so you routinely have students working together.

Originally Posted by Philipp31

How is this relevant in the slightest? This actually has nothing to do with anything. There is honestly so much ignorance in this particular sentence it hurts my head. Please, please, please think before you start saying garbage like this.

Im sorry if I offended you. However, what I said is clearly a fact. McMaster renovated their health sci library, increased their spending on health care related research and undobutfully a huge amount of money in their health care facilities. If this is not relevant, then how do you explain the amount of scholarship given to the health sci kids (by percentage of course) compared to the other faculties. Especially when these scholarships are based on top % of the faculty.

Originally Posted by gggggg

Im sorry if I offended you. However, what I said is clearly a fact. McMaster renovated their health sci library, increased their spending on health care related research and undobutfully a huge amount of money in their health care facilities. If this is not relevant, then how do you explain the amount of scholarship given to the health sci kids (by percentage of course) compared to the other faculties. Especially when these scholarships are based on top % of the faculty.

I think all that stuff you mentioned has much more to do with the Med School than BHSc.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

[seriously, someone said they have meetings 15-18 hours a day? Absurd. If you need to meet 18 hours a day you are doing something wrong).

I wish I was exaggerating, but I'm not. That was my life for the last month of first year. Of course in the initial stages of a project, your group meetings are short because you think you have a lot of time. Then towards the end of term, you pay the price for your procrastination and you end up with meetings that go this long. In fact, our whole group skipped classes for the last month. Why?

1.Well we aren't productive for the whole 15 hours, we're tired and exhausted and everything takes longer to do. Our skills with working in groups are still developing and we are nowhere near maximizing our efficiency and productivity.

2. We're working with 8 or 9 other perfectionists who all want their opinion to count and who all want to get no less than a 12 in this course.

3.We have multiple projects all due at the same time. These meetings are not to work on one project but often two, sometimes three.

If I did any of those projects on my own, it would take 1/10th of the time it took me to do it with a group, but ofcourse it wouldn't be as good, so that's where the benefit of collaboration comes in.

Originally Posted by RememberTwce

I think all that stuff you mentioned has much more to do with the Med School than BHSc.

yes, it does but your program is benefited by being in the faculty of health sciences by utilizing their resources that we do not have. (ex. It would be a lot easier for you to get research with a health sci prof). Moreover, although my point is biased but the fact that health sci are being treated better than other undergrad programs is very apparant and it can be seen everywhere in mcmaster even on their website.

Originally Posted by gggggg

Im sorry if I offended you. However, what I said is clearly a fact. McMaster renovated their health sci library, increased their spending on health care related research and undobutfully a huge amount of money in their health care facilities. If this is not relevant, then how do you explain the amount of scholarship given to the health sci kids (by percentage of course) compared to the other faculties. Especially when these scholarships are based on top % of the faculty.

I think its really confusing with the naming, but I really doubt the BHSc scholarships are in any way connected to:

Health Science Library
Health care research
health care facilities (in fact, I don't even know if this one is connected to the university at all)

Looking at the Senate Scholarships, the cutoffs for Health Sci are significantly higher than other programs. This is an irrefutable fact. We have to get a higher average than other faculties to get the same scholarship. And now, how is THAT fair?

But wait, I can anticipate your arguments now. You're going to say that Health Sci courses are "easy" based on the fact that mostly everybody does well. Sure, everybody does well, but that doesn't mean nobody works hard. That doesn't mean that the administration favours us. And why must administration give scholarships proportional to the amount of people in the program? I would turn it around and say it's unfair to us. Obviously, you cannot compare the difficulty of the courses. A biology course and a chemistry course are different; there is no doubt about it. Group work and individual work has its strengths and flaws; how do you compare apples to oranges? But what I can compare, though, is the grades needed to get that scholarship. And based on the stats, Health Scis need a 11.7 to get the same scholarship while the people in other programs need less.

I guess you guys are right. The system is unfair.

Originally Posted by RememberTwce

That's because a Health Sci created the document and posted it on LearnLink to discuss with others. It wasn't given to them, nor did it give them any advantage because if they weren't online, they'd be together working on it anyways. You can't blame the students for working together, because people in all faculties do it. It's just that Health Sci promotes collaboration and so you routinely have students working together.

Meh, we also have an orgo group on facebook where it could have been posted.