Originally Posted by Mahratta

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. .

So many arguments were made ad nauseam on the other thread. I don't know what you expect in addition to this. Please elaborate.

In response to the supposed perks we get the majority of it is generated by students. BHSc students who take the initiative to collaborate and help their fellow students in non-BHSc courses like chem, orgo and biochem. You can't say that having things like LearnLink is the only reason why we collaborate. A lot of our collaboration happens on our facebook group and in person during the school year. It is BHSc students, not the faculty, who make notes to share with others, who set up sessions to help others, who do take home exams together etc. The BHSc faculty have better things to do than to set up Google Docs and what not for us.

In addition, this is to be expected from any small program. In any small program, you get closer to your classmates, more contact with faculty etc. Look at iSci, they have a forum too and I'm sure they collaborate too. Why aren't they criticized similarly? This is asking a pertinent question, not pointing fingers.

Originally Posted by Aeria

So many arguments were made ad nauseam on the other thread. I don't know what you expect in addition to this. Please elaborate.

In response to the supposed perks we get the majority of it is generated by students. BHSc students who take the initiative to collaborate and help their fellow students in non-BHSc courses like chem, orgo and biochem. You can't say that having things like LearnLink is the only reason why we collaborate. A lot of our collaboration happens on our facebook group and in person during the school year. It is BHSc students, not the faculty, who make notes to share with others, who set up sessions to help others, who do take home exams together etc. The BHSc faculty have better things to do than to set up Google Docs and what not for us.

In addition, this is to be expected from any small program. In any small program, you get closer to your classmates, more contact with faculty etc. Look at iSci, they have a forum too and I'm sure they collaborate too. Why aren't they criticized similarly? This is asking a pertinent question, not pointing fingers.

It's also the nature of the collaboration. Some of the resources are borderline or outright academic dishonesty (including some of those on learnlink).

Also, iSci is very new (so there hasn't been time to develop any animosity towards them, with the exception of them taking over 3rd floor in Thode), and they don't take many courses with other programs with the exception of a few electives. Their core courses are only with each other (unlike health scis who all take first year chem, and many of whom take orgo, etc). They also usually don't take the same electives, thus don't have the opportunity to collaborate with each other on them. For those that are in a concentration, there are usually relatively few (if any) others in the concentration with them, so same thing goes. I don't really think iSci is a good comparison.

Something interesting to note, that may contribute to the problem, is that Health Science is doing it right while most other programs are doing it wrong.

Health sci develops core skills in communication, thinking/reasoning, group work, etc. All things you actually need in real life.

Life sci develops your ability to cram and memorize.

People say health sci students don't work hard, but it's funny because I'm sure they come out far more capable than most life sci students even if they didn't "study" as much.
Who would you rather hire - a grad from health sci who has had hundreds of hours of group work, communication based courses, good references from professors and other faculty, etc, or someone who did well in life sci which doesn't mean anything?

I don't think Life Sci students are "bitter" at not getting into Health Sci, nor would I classify them as jealous. (The following two paragraphs make it seem like Life Sci's are jealous but I wouldn't really characterize them as such).

I think people get annoyed, partially because, Health Sci (not counting the transfers) were chosen based on grade 12 marks/applications. So we have students in a good program, where they learn useful skills, and aren't studying from textbooks all day, get to collaborate with other hard working individuals, etc, all because they did well in grade 12. Most people would consider high school marks not representative of much, and yet grade 12 marks and applications give some students major advantages over the next four years compared to others. [Obviously this holds for any program, but my point is Life Sci vs Health Sci is mainly based on grade 12 marks/applications]

I'm not sure how accurate any of this is. Personally, I don't really care about Health Sci vs Life Sci. But since I was in Life Sci, I threw out a couple potential reasons why people may dislike Health Sci.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Something interesting to note, that may contribute to the problem, is that Health Science is doing it right while most other programs are doing it wrong.

Health sci develops core skills in communication, thinking/reasoning, group work, etc. All things you actually need in real life.

Life sci develops your ability to cram and memorize.

People say health sci students don't work hard, but it's funny because I'm sure they come out far more capable than most life sci students even if they didn't "study" as much.
Who would you rather hire - a grad from health sci who has had hundreds of hours of group work, communication based courses, good references from professors and other faculty, etc, or someone who did well in life sci which doesn't mean anything?

I don't think Life Sci students are "bitter" at not getting into Health Sci, nor would I classify them as jealous. (The following two paragraphs make it seem like Life Sci's are jealous but I wouldn't really characterize them as such).

I think people get annoyed, partially because, Health Sci (not counting the transfers) were chosen based on grade 12 marks/applications. So we have students in a good program, where they learn useful skills, and aren't studying from textbooks all day, get to collaborate with other hard working individuals, etc, all because they did well in grade 12. Most people would consider high school marks not representative of much, and yet grade 12 marks and applications give some students major advantages over the next four years compared to others. [Obviously this holds for any program, but my point is Life Sci vs Health Sci is mainly based on grade 12 marks/applications]

I'm not sure how accurate any of this is. Personally, I don't really care about Health Sci vs Life Sci. But since I was in Life Sci, I threw out a couple potential reasons why people may dislike Health Sci.

I don't think health sci is doing it "right". The way the program is set up practically begs for people to slack, and for those that do (and there are a significant number), it reinforces the entitled/silver spoon mentality.

Some profs very much prefer non-health sci applicants to health scis for positions in their lab.

That said, I don't think life sci is doing it right either. I think you need a middle ground. Although the people in health sci who are hard workers and make it a point to actually get something out of their degree and learn things while they're here, will definitely come out ahead.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Something interesting to note, that may contribute to the problem, is that Health Science is doing it right while most other programs are doing it wrong.

Health sci develops core skills in communication, thinking/reasoning, group work, etc. All things you actually need in real life.

Life sci develops your ability to cram and memorize.

People say health sci students don't work hard, but it's funny because I'm sure they come out far more capable than most life sci students even if they didn't "study" as much.
Who would you rather hire - a grad from health sci who has had hundreds of hours of group work, communication based courses, good references from professors and other faculty, etc, or someone who did well in life sci which doesn't mean anything?

I don't think Life Sci students are "bitter" at not getting into Health Sci, nor would I classify them as jealous. (The following two paragraphs make it seem like Life Sci's are jealous but I wouldn't really characterize them as such).

I think people get annoyed, partially because, Health Sci (not counting the transfers) were chosen based on grade 12 marks/applications. So we have students in a good program, where they learn useful skills, and aren't studying from textbooks all day, get to collaborate with other hard working individuals, etc, all because they did well in grade 12. Most people would consider high school marks not representative of much, and yet grade 12 marks and applications give some students major advantages over the next four years compared to others. [Obviously this holds for any program, but my point is Life Sci vs Health Sci is mainly based on grade 12 marks/applications]

I'm not sure how accurate any of this is. Personally, I don't really care about Health Sci vs Life Sci. But since I was in Life Sci, I threw out a couple potential reasons why people may dislike Health Sci.

There is a difference between collaborating and individual success. I don't think I have ever seen any other program that has so much collaboration. Grade 12 marks are the most subjective I have ever seen and I am definitely telling from experience. I know people who got into Ivy League schools while rejected from BHsc. Most BHsc people are successful in getting into med because of their grades and the amount of ECs they have (For some reason, all the med related clubs such as red cross, mcmaster medicine and me, etc... are FILLED with Health sci executives). Your comments make life science people like trash that have no real life skills, however, which skills are more important in the field of medicine and science? The knowledge and ability to do your work and succeed ( either in science/medicine) or work in a group of 10 and hopefully everyone get some credit. Collaboration and communication are very important. However, the scientific knowledge and the ability to perform or make decisions individually is vital in the field of medicine and science. Honestly, if a health sci was applying to a phD program in U of T or american schools, they would have a difficult time convincing the admission commitee that they did a lot of individual work and they obtained a lot of knowledge from biology, biochem, or even medical sciences.

Originally Posted by nerual

I don't think health sci is doing it "right". The way the program is set up practically begs for people to slack, and for those that do (and there are a significant number), it reinforces the entitled/silver spoon mentality.

I'm not familiar with too many people in the HSc program. I find it interesting that there are a significant number of people who slack. To me, it seems like if you got a 90% in HS, and more importantly, had good EC's and had a good supplemental application and wanted to get into a Canadian med school, you wouldn't slack. And I'm not saying that as in, that's not in their best interest, I'm saying that as in they're just hard workers.

This is a fair point though.

Originally Posted by nerual

That said, I don't think life sci is doing it right either. I think you need a middle ground. Although the people in health sci who are hard workers and make it a point to actually get something out of their degree and learn things while they're here, will definitely come out ahead.

Sure, agreed. The middle ground is often best. But as you said, Life Sci is definitely not doing it right. I would argue that HSc is closer to doing it right than Life Sci but I don't think that's particularly important.

Originally Posted by gggggg

There is a difference between collaborating and individual success. I don't think I have ever seen any other program that has so much collaboration. Grade 12 marks are the most subjective I have ever seen and I am definitely telling from experience. I know people who got into Ivy League schools while rejected from BHsc. Most BHsc people are successful in getting into med because of their grades and the amount of ECs they have (For some reason, all the med related clubs such as red cross, mcmaster medicine and me, etc... are FILLED with Health sci executives). Your comments make life science people like trash that have no real life skills, however, which skills are more important in the field of medicine and science? The knowledge and ability to do your work and succeed ( either in science/medicine) or work in a group of 10 and hopefully everyone get some credit. Collaboration and communication are very important. However, the scientific knowledge and the ability to perform or make decisions individually is vital in the field of medicine and science. Honestly, if a health sci was applying to a phD program in U of T or american schools, they would have a difficult time convincing the admission commitee that they did a lot of individual work and they obtained a lot of knowledge from biology, biochem, or even medical sciences.

Sorry if I made "Life science people sound like trash" - if that were the case I would be calling myself trash. But I'm uninterested in bashing HSc just for the sake of it and trying to recognize a lot of the good things about the program.

Furthermore, I think you'd be surprised how much the ability to work in a group can help you. Everything is so insanely specialized now, you could spend years researching one protein capsid of one virus for 15 years. You can't work alone anymore. Everyone needs to work together to get anything done.* (this is an exaggeration of course, but I hope you see where I'm going with this).

There is a reason why Medical schools don't require many pre-req courses. Because the science you learn in undergrad doesn't matter for medicine. At all. If the "knowledge" you learned in Life Science helped, then it would be required of all students to be in life sci. Instead you have kids coming in from humanities, engineering, health sci, life sci and anything else. And that's because medical schools are looking for people with skills, not knowledge. Which program develops your skill more effectively? Health sci. Maybe that's why so many of them get into med school so "easily"?

Originally Posted by gggggg

There is a difference between collaborating and individual success. I don't think I have ever seen any other program that has so much collaboration. Grade 12 marks are the most subjective I have ever seen and I am definitely telling from experience. I know people who got into Ivy League schools while rejected from BHsc. Most BHsc people are successful in getting into med because of their grades and the amount of ECs they have (For some reason, all the med related clubs such as red cross, mcmaster medicine and me, etc... are FILLED with Health sci executives). Your comments make life science people like trash that have no real life skills, however, which skills are more important in the field of medicine and science? The knowledge and ability to do your work and succeed ( either in science/medicine) or work in a group of 10 and hopefully everyone get some credit. Collaboration and communication are very important. However, the scientific knowledge and the ability to perform or make decisions individually is vital in the field of medicine and science. Honestly, if a health sci was applying to a phD program in U of T or american schools, they would have a difficult time convincing the admission commitee that they did a lot of individual work and they obtained a lot of knowledge from biology, biochem, or even medical sciences.

The knowledge comes from reading the literature. The stuff / info you will need for your career in research isn't even published or discovered yet, and will not really relate at all to your undergraduate education other than the bare basics which are not THAT difficult to learn. Scientific knowledge is important, but that is lifelong learning, not something that is somehow taught in lifesci and not health sci. I agree with you on the last part. Plenty of hth scis get into phd programs but I'm sure they have had research experience in summers etc. The same problem would be in core life sci or biology where you have tons of electives too and no required lab experience. Specialized programs are the only advantage on that one (biochem, chem bio, mol biol...) Lastly, that's one of the reasons I'm in the biochem specialization within bhsc.. keep my options open and take enough biochemistry / get enough lab experience to be an extremely competitive applicant to grad school if I so choose. Plus, underwater basket weaving doesn't interest me so I got to use up the elective space some other way.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

I'm not familiar with too many people in the HSc program. I find it interesting that there are a significant number of people who slack. To me, it seems like if you got a 90% in HS, and more importantly, had good EC's and had a good supplemental application and wanted to get into a Canadian med school, you wouldn't slack. And I'm not saying that as in, that's not in their best interest, I'm saying that as in they're just hard workers.

This is a fair point though.

I think that's the logic of the admissions committee--people who do that well in high school won't slack. But the thing is, when given the opportunity, people who otherwise wouldn't, will. And they'll get used to it.

Originally Posted by gggggg

There is a difference between collaborating and individual success. I don't think I have ever seen any other program that has so much collaboration. Grade 12 marks are the most subjective I have ever seen and I am definitely telling from experience. I know people who got into Ivy League schools while rejected from BHsc. Most BHsc people are successful in getting into med because of their grades and the amount of ECs they have (For some reason, all the med related clubs such as red cross, mcmaster medicine and me, etc... are FILLED with Health sci executives). Your comments make life science people like trash that have no real life skills, however, which skills are more important in the field of medicine and science? The knowledge and ability to do your work and succeed ( either in science/medicine) or work in a group of 10 and hopefully everyone get some credit. Collaboration and communication are very important. However, the scientific knowledge and the ability to perform or make decisions individually is vital in the field of medicine and science. Honestly, if a health sci was applying to a phD program in U of T or american schools, they would have a difficult time convincing the admission commitee that they did a lot of individual work and they obtained a lot of knowledge from biology, biochem, or even medical sciences.

You're totally right, health sci doesnt teach you how to do "work and succeed", we actually just sit in group meetings all day (and night) talking about feelings. we dont obtain any knowledge at all, i really wish i had taken research methodologies (2a03) cause you know, what why actually do your own research when you can just learn the scientific method and regurgitate it on a test? i understand that its not your average program but that doesnt mean you should just assume everyone in the program is a babbling buffoon. Its one thing to say that you dont see the merits in the program style or that the program is not right for you, but to just go out and say that the entire program has a second rate "ability to perform or make decisions" is ridiculous. judge each person individually not by the program they're in

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

I'm not familiar with too many people in the HSc program. I find it interesting that there are a significant number of people who slack. To me, it seems like if you got a 90% in HS, and more importantly, had good EC's and had a good supplemental application and wanted to get into a Canadian med school, you wouldn't slack. And I'm not saying that as in, that's not in their best interest, I'm saying that as in they're just hard workers.

This is a fair point though.



Sure, agreed. The middle ground is often best. But as you said, Life Sci is definitely not doing it right. I would argue that HSc is closer to doing it right than Life Sci but I don't think that's particularly important.



Sorry if I made "Life science people sound like trash" - if that were the case I would be calling myself trash. But I'm uninterested in bashing HSc just for the sake of it and trying to recognize a lot of the good things about the program.

Furthermore, I think you'd be surprised how much the ability to work in a group can help you. Everything is so insanely specialized now, you could spend years researching one protein capsid of one virus for 15 years. You can't work alone anymore. Everyone needs to work together to get anything done.* (this is an exaggeration of course, but I hope you see where I'm going with this).

There is a reason why Medical schools don't require many pre-req courses. Because the science you learn in undergrad doesn't matter for medicine. At all. If the "knowledge" you learned in Life Science helped, then it would be required of all students to be in life sci. Instead you have kids coming in from humanities, engineering, health sci, life sci and anything else. And that's because medical schools are looking for people with skills, not knowledge. Which program develops your skill more effectively? Health sci. Maybe that's why so many of them get into med school so "easily"?

Working in the group DOES help, and it certainly is important. What I am saying is that if 10 people are working on a virus, only 1 or 2 individuals are going to be the principle investigator or research associate who will usually get the credit and knows the most. The PI may never even interact with the research assistant and the people in a lab are collaborating but in the sense that each person is doing individual work and only a few people are credited with the "group work". Only Ontario med schools dont require vigorous requirements (esp. MAC.. not surprisingly). Any Ivy league or non-ontario med schools require vigorous requirements like full year calculus, physics, biochem, biology, english, etc...) and these reflect how important it is to have prior science knowledge in med school. Med school are looking for skills and knowledge, both these usually come together since only a basic knowledge of science can give you the ability to perform surgery, conduct lab research, and etc... that is why almost all med schools (Except MAC... again) look at the science sections of the MCAT. I would not want a doctor who is so good at communicating that they do not know their basic scientific knowledge.

Originally Posted by beeber33

You're totally right, health sci doesnt teach you how to do "work and succeed", we actually just sit in group meetings all day (and night) talking about feelings. we dont obtain any knowledge at all, i really wish i had taken research methodologies (2a03) cause you know, what why actually do your own research when you can just learn the scientific method and regurgitate it on a test? i understand that its not your average program but that doesnt mean you should just assume everyone in the program is a babbling buffoon. Its one thing to say that you dont see the merits in the program style or that the program is not right for you, but to just go out and say that the entire program has a second rate "ability to perform or make decisions" is ridiculous. judge each person individually not by the program they're in

Okay, I did not imply you guys make second rate ability to perform or make decisions, I said it is hard to convince people you did all that on an individual level. I did not say you don't obtain knowledge at all, I am saying you guys focus more on communication and group work rather than memorizing scientific knowledge and learning about it from a textbook. I DID NOT assume everyone in the program is a babbling buffoon, and I did not imply it either. Btw, I dont know what this research methodology course it is but Im certainly sure it is more useful than something like theatre development (how is this even relevant to health sci??)

Originally Posted by nerual

The way the program is set up practically begs for people to slack, and for those that do (and there are a significant number), it reinforces the entitled/silver spoon mentality.

What is your source for saying that a significant number slack? 75% of our class had above 95% averages in high school and the rest had 90 or more. Although high school marks means little, it atleast shows that we are high achievers. When the majority of us are aiming for med school, do you really think we are going to "slack"?

Originally Posted by nerual

Some profs very much prefer non-health sci applicants to health scis for positions in their lab.

I have experienced this first hand. This often is because professors are worried that HthScis will leave the lab if they get accepted to med school instead of continuing on with a Masters or PhD in the field. Not because they think any less of us or our program. So they think that that the research is just being used for med apps. What I find ironic is that LifeScis who aim for med want the same jobs, but can get away with saying that they might do research in the future.

Originally Posted by Aeria

What is your source for saying that a significant number slack? 75% of our class had above 95% averages in high school and the rest had 90 or more. Although high school marks means little, it atleast shows that we are high achievers. When the majority of us are aiming for med school, do you really think we are going to "slack"?
I have experienced this first hand. This often is because professors are worried that HthScis will leave the lab if they get accepted to med school instead of continuing on with a Masters or PhD in the field. Not because they think any less of us or our program. So they think that that the research is just being used for med apps. What I find ironic is that LifeScis who aim for med want the same jobs, but can get away with saying that they might do research in the future.

First, a "significant number" is not a majority.
Second, maybe some profs are, but this also happens with students wanting to do 3rd year projects, and does in fact happen because some profs think less of the program. That's not the reason for all profs, but it does happen. This is coming from in some cases profs themselves who have told me this, and in other cases from students in a prof's lab. (For the record, the prof that I work for has no problem whatsoever hiring health scis just in case anyone is wondering if that is who I am referring to)

Originally Posted by TheCrucible

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.

I wasn't really thinking of anyone in particular, but rather pointing out a trend with some exaggerated language.

This isn't representative of all health sci students, just an anecdote. Since the beginning of high school up till grade 12, i have gotten higher marks than all my health sci friends (high 90's). In university when we took electives together, i again scored much higher on every class. Though somehow my friends in health sci have a significantly higher gpa than me, which baffles me. Either my friends simply excel in their faculty's courses and suck at electives, or something really is fishy about that faculty.

Again this too isn't representative of all health sci students, but somehow or the other, ever since my buddies have gotten into this program, they seem extra cocky and arrogant, and seem to think they are smarter than everyone else. They have also gone in a zone where they keep repeating "med-school" no matter how many times i meet them or try to change the topic.

^If that is you, kindly realize and change the attitude