Originally Posted by Aeria

No one said that everyone was bitter. However when the majority of the critics of a program are those who wanted to enter the program in the first place but were unsuccessful in applying, what better conclusion can be made?
They entered with the knowledge that LifeSci is a much bigger program (so you can anticipate the competitiveness) and that it doesn't entail nearly as much group work (which as discussed does inflate your grades). They also entered with the knowledge that HthSci is more often people's first choice program (for whatever reason) compared to LifeSci. Also, as a high school grad, it is very easy to Google things like the Provost Honour Roll and Senate and Hooker Scholarships online. Something I did, and if you saw that more HthScis were getting such awards, then this is something you could have known as well, had you done the research.

What is your source for the majority of the critics being unsuccessful in entering the program in the first place? That's the kind of arrogance I was talking about. It's an arrogant assumption. You're also assuming that people in Life Sci don't like their program.

Not everyone entered knowing health sci had a lot of group projects. That's no one's fault but their own, but it also doesn't just apply to people in life sci--some health scis entered having no idea either.

I don't understand how health sci being more people's first choice is relevant.

As for more health scis getting awards like that, I think it's a pretty big leap (and a dumb one) to make a decision about a program based on something like that.

Originally Posted by nerual

What is your source for the majority of the critics being unsuccessful in entering the program in the first place? That's the kind of arrogance I was talking about. It's an arrogant assumption. You're also assuming that people in Life Sci don't like their program.

Nobody ever said that. But are you telling me that in equal proportions Humanities, SocSci, Business and Engineering kids are as critical of Hth Sci as LifeSci kids? If you think so, then all power to you, you can believe whatever you want. In my short time here at Mac, it has been experience that this isn't true at all.

Originally Posted by nerual

As for more health scis getting awards like that, I think it's a pretty big leap (and a dumb one) to make a decision about a program based on something like that.

Really? One of the biggest reasons my high school friends didn't come to Mac was because other schools offered them copious amount of scholarship money. If money for school is something important to you, then researching scholarships is the obvious thing to do.

Originally Posted by Aeria

Nobody ever said that. But are you telling me that in equal proportions Humanities, SocSci, Business and Engineering kids are as critical of Hth Sci as LifeSci kids? If you think so, then all power to you, you can believe whatever you want.

Well, life sci kids should be more critical of health sci than anyone else, given that the two subjects are much more similar than, say, history and health sci, or math and healthsci, or eng and healthsci, or whatever. That said, I think a lot of lifesci criticism is overly personal and tends to compare personal traits of students from each faculty -- which doesn't make much sense (from experience on this forum), but the point stands nevertheless.

In any case, you're dodging the questions by pointing the fingers at someone else.

Originally Posted by Aeria

Nobody ever said that. But are you telling me that in equal proportions Humanities, SocSci, Business and Engineering kids are as critical of Hth Sci as LifeSci kids? If you think so, then all power to you, you can believe whatever you want.

Really? One of the biggest reasons my high school friends didn't come to Mac was because other schools offered them copious amount of scholarship money. If money for school is something important to you, then researching scholarships is the obvious thing to do.

That's different. That's the guarantee of money (ie it's already been offered to you) versus the possibility of getting a competitive scholarship.

I don't think they're critical of health sci in equal proportions, but I also think the reasons for that are very different than what you have stated. A small minority of people might be bitter, but I really don't think that's the reason for the vast majority of criticism.

Originally Posted by nerual

That's different. That's the guarantee of money (ie it's already been offered to you) versus the possibility of getting a competitive scholarship.

I don't think they're critical of health sci in equal proportions, but I also think the reasons for that are very different than what you have stated. A small minority of people might be bitter, but I really don't think that's the reason for the vast majority of criticism.

What do you think the reason for the majority of criticism is? I'm just curious (and this is not sarcastic).

As well, I've noticed that the majority of criticism is localized to macinsiders and some other online forums. Most people I've met in person from other programs don't really care when they ask what program I'm in and I tell them I'm in Health Sciences.

^I can't imagine someone telling you in person that they're annoyed with your program.

Originally Posted by TheCrucible

What do you think the reason for the majority of criticism is? I'm just curious (and this is not sarcastic).

As well, I've noticed that the majority of criticism is localized to macinsiders and some other online forums. Most people I've met in person from other programs don't really care when they ask what program I'm in and I tell them I'm in Health Sciences.

I think people tend to be more vocal about it online

And I think the reason for most of the criticism is the perception of unfair treatment, of others getting rewarded for less work. People tend to feel like health scis get extra resources, extra faculty assistance, and a bunch of other perks that isn't fair. It gives them a leg up, even in courses taken with other programs (ex, chem 1A03/1AA3, biochem 2EE3).

Originally Posted by Silver

^I can't imagine someone telling you in person that they're annoyed with your program.

You have no idea.

Originally Posted by nerual

I think people tend to be more vocal about it online

And I think the reason for most of the criticism is the perception of unfair treatment, of others getting rewarded for less work. People tend to feel like health scis get extra resources, extra faculty assistance, and a bunch of other perks that isn't fair. It gives them a leg up, even in courses taken with other programs (ex, chem 1A03/1AA3, biochem 2EE3).

Thanks. I'll think on this a bit.

You have no idea.

Yea, I do. Some people probably do tell you, but many wouldn't say anything. People don't want to come off like that in person.

Originally Posted by Silver

Yea, I do. Some people probably do tell you, but many wouldn't say anything. People don't want to come off like that in person.

You're right, most people probably wouldn't say anything. But some people do. Some people don't even say anything, but they communicate in other ways (i.e. body language). A lot of people instantly form a stereotypical image of me the moment I tell them what program I'm in - you can tell by their body language, eyes, etc. It's ridiculous.

And I've also had the people who do say things. Most of the time it's not anything serious, but sometimes it's nasty and shocking. There are people who really hate health scis and aren't afraid to show it.

I'd never thought that going to Mac would mean being judged by my field of study. You'd think university students and professors would be more mature than that.

Then why say most hate is on forums if you seem to experience it frequently.

Originally Posted by Silver

Then why say most hate is on forums if you seem to experience it frequently.

I meant sometimes, not all the time. Sorry - I guess I'll revise: Most of the outright hate is on forums. Most people in person don't seem to care (or maybe they do, but I try not to be cynical). But some people are vocal about it. And if they're not vocal about it, you can tell by their body language.

Originally Posted by TheCrucible

I'd never thought that going to Mac would mean being judged by my field of study. You'd think university students and professors would be more mature than that.

Rightly or wrongly, if you are discriminated against for your field of study, it is for the "born with a silver spoon" reason.

You may or may not agree with it, but there is a widespread perception that health science students get a degree (and a good grade) served up to them; I don't think that the defences you and other health science students have made have helped your cases, as you've merely attacked those that attack you, rather than attempted to explain the perception/show it as a misconception/etc. Again, the fact is that such a perception exists. Attacking this or that group doesn't really help the cause -- in this case I don't mean you, but the health sci posters who tend to attribute this all to the jealousy of those who didn't get in.

Originally, I really wanted to get into health sci first year too. However, after first year university, I thought it was not a program for me because I "hate" group work in the sense that people in the group always disagree with each other. Not only that, when I was in a group, there is always one or two person doing all the work while others just get the mark! I think if group work is implemented, the mark should be entirely individual and everyone in the group should be expected to complete their own work with the help with the info the group gathered. I know people who dislikes health sci people and there are a lot of them too (From people being rejected to people from other schools), however, people who are defending this program are usually people who are in it, so in the end there is no proof whether this program is easy or not unless viewing it from a statistical perspective.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Rightly or wrongly, if you are discriminated against for your field of study, it is for the "born with a silver spoon" reason.

You may or may not agree with it, but there is a widespread perception that health science students get a degree (and a good grade) served up to them; I don't think that the defences you and other health science students have made have helped your cases, as you've merely attacked those that attack you, rather than attempted to explain the perception/show it as a misconception/etc. Again, the fact is that such a perception exists. Attacking this or that group doesn't really help the cause -- in this case I don't mean you, but the health sci posters who tend to attribute this all to the jealousy of those who didn't get in.

Well, you know, I haven't really been trying to elucidate the misconceptions. Most of my posts have admittedly been off-topic about the extent of the "health sci hate". And I think you're referring to all the health sci posters when you say this (the bolded part), but I don't recall ever attacking someone myself.

And I need to think on nerual's previous post before responding to the perceptions.

And I'm just going to say this: if people really have a legitimate concern with grade inflation and lack of worth ethic that matches the marks in the BHSc programme, then bring this issue up to the BHSc office, the university administration, and/or someone higher up. Gather your evidence and make your case. Get a group of people if you want. It's that simple.