My friends (in Hsci) always told me the hardest part was getting in. They do have their difficult courses but they are well taken care of in the sense they are the crown jewel representatives of Mac.

Reading the discussion about the "communication skills" that health sci kids go through. I have several friends in bio related engineering courses who take the same anatomy classes as health sci . Some of it included large group presentations. I guess the debate on emphasis on regurgitation and presentation is the importance of the medical field to communicate properly to others the scientific knowledge also in a lamens terms way.

Also, please keep the flamebaiting to a minimum.

With regards to health sci and studying...
Yes, many people do get 12's without studying. Yes, many people focus on group work and leave textbooks well alone. But the potential is there...and, actually, if you look at the individual students in health sci, you can differentiate between the ones who are there for a free ride and ones there to actually learn.
And health sci is a wonderful programme with excellent resources for those who wish to learn.

Health sci is definitely flawed but so is every other program. I don't think it's the hardest program around by far (1st year in particular is a breeze), but it's not as easy as people think. PBL and self directed learning has its pros and cons and while it may seem like PBL could only be advantageous to students (no lectures, no tests, no textbook etc), it really depends on the type of learner you are. Personally I have a very good memory so I actually strongly prefer traditional lecture-based courses because I can do well in them with less effort. All it takes for me is to read over lecture slides twice a couple days before the exam and I'm done studying. On the other hand, with PBL health sci courses, I have weekly (at least, sometimes 2x a week) group meetings, research that I have to conduct in my own time, have to somehow teach myself the material with zero guidance (no lecture notes, no textbook), and amalgamate all the info to teach to the rest of my peers. And there are typically at least 2 group projects going on at once (for different courses). I did better in courses like anat&phys, immunology, etc than I did in inquiry. Also, for people doubting how stressful/long group meetings can be, imagine putting 10 perfectionists and people that are used to being the leader into the same group. You'll spend hours just deciding on a powerpoint background/font/font size etc.

As for health scis not obtaining any scientific knowledge because it isn't taught to us, I find that I actually retain more knowledge when I have to do the research myself than when a prof reads it off a slide to me (and I think that's true for most people).

Re: slackers in health sci. Most of them are gone by 2nd year (because you can't slack and survive anat&phys - the bellringer is all on you, no group work). And the true slackers won't receive any credit for their work (if the rest of the group tells the admin). In 1st year cell bio, one of my group members never showed up to any meeting. We even went to his res and he refused to open his door. So we did the project without him, even though we kept in the loop about meetings, progress we've made, research that needs to be done etc. He never contributed or showed up, so at the end of the year we told Stash and he gave him a 0. He was kicked out after that because apparently he never went to any of his other classes either. For the most part, by 3rd year everyone contributes equally and is hard working because 99.9% of health scis are aiming for grad/professional school. We only have 1 or 2 mandatory PBL classes per year, so it's not like they would have a huge impact on your cumulative GPA anyway.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Firstly, nobody is being judged for their choice of program. If anything, the program conveys some sort of quality about you as a person. I don't hate you for your choice of education.

You are missing the point entirely. By dramatically inflating grades, the program has diminished the potential for accomplishment while enrolled in the program (although substantially increasing everyone's chances of being admitted into medical school). You can have both a selective program and the ability to have standouts, but the program has deliberately decided not to do that. I understand if you like being spoonfed, because there isn't much of a downside for you. However, I'd like to have the discussion about inflation. This doesn't do anything to improve the quality of our future professionals. Nobody benefits from this except the students. Why are taxpayers subsidizing this?

As for the "there are students who deserve these grades" arguments. You can't be serious. I'm attending one of the most competitive program in the country in my field, and have made all the sacrifices that go along with that. If there was a program anywhere in the country that gave the type of grades BHSc seems content with handing out, I wouldn't have had a chance. Will all professional schools soon only accept those who had the good fortune of being excellent high school students?

With regards to health sci and studying...
Yes, many people do get 12's without studying. Yes, many people focus on group work and leave textbooks well alone. But the potential is there...and, actually, if you look at the individual students in health sci, you can differentiate between the ones who are there for a free ride and ones there to actually learn.
And health sci is a wonderful programme with excellent resources for those who wish to learn.

Literally my point.

Originally Posted by WalkerBlue

Firstly, nobody is being judged for their choice of program. If anything, the program conveys some sort of quality about you as a person. I don't hate you for your choice of education.

You are missing the point entirely. By dramatically inflating grades, the program has diminished the potential for accomplishment while enrolled in the program (although substantially increasing everyone's chances of being admitted into medical school). You can have both a selective program and the ability to have standouts, but the program has deliberately decided not to do that. I understand if you like being spoonfed, because there isn't much of a downside for you. However, I'd like to have the discussion about inflation. This doesn't do anything to improve the quality of our future professionals. Nobody benefits from this except the students. Why are taxpayers subsidizing this?

As for the "there are students who deserve these grades" arguments. You can't be serious. I'm attending the most competitive program in the country in my field, and have made all the sacrifices that go along with that. If there was a program anywhere in the country that gave the type of grades BHSc seems content with handing out, I wouldn't have had a chance. Will all professional schools soon only accept those who had the good fortune of being excellent high school students?

[color=#555555][color=#555555]

Literally my point.

I agree. Like honestly, most of the ppl who go into health sci to get the grades, that is why the program is so popular. A LOT of people in the program gets in med due to inflated grades and enough time and resources to get ECs and reference from physicians. If the average in health sci is the same as the average in life sci at U of T, the program would definitely not be so popular anymore.

Originally Posted by WalkerBlue

Firstly, nobody is being judged for their choice of program. If anything, the program conveys some sort of quality about you as a person. I don't hate you for your choice of education.

You are missing the point entirely. By dramatically inflating grades, the program has diminished the potential for accomplishment while enrolled in the program (although substantially increasing everyone's chances of being admitted into medical school). You can have both a selective program and the ability to have standouts, but the program has deliberately decided not to do that. I understand if you like being spoonfed, because there isn't much of a downside for you. However, I'd like to have the discussion about inflation. This doesn't do anything to improve the quality of our future professionals. Nobody benefits from this except the students. Why are taxpayers subsidizing this?

As for the "there are students who deserve these grades" arguments. You can't be serious. I'm attending the most competitive program in the country in my field, and have made all the sacrifices that go along with that. If there was a program anywhere in the country that gave the type of grades BHSc seems content with handing out, I wouldn't have had a chance. Will all professional schools soon only accept those who had the good fortune of being excellent high school students?

[color=#555555][color=#555555]

Literally my point.

I am just curious... why do you think the grades are dramatically inflated and that the students are spoon-fed? What evidence do you have to support those statements?

This is not just directed to you... anyone who has evidence to support that, please share

Originally Posted by WalkerBlue

Firstly, nobody is being judged for their choice of program. If anything, the program conveys some sort of quality about you as a person. I don't hate you for your choice of education.

You are missing the point entirely. By dramatically inflating grades, the program has diminished the potential for accomplishment while enrolled in the program (although substantially increasing everyone's chances of being admitted into medical school). You can have both a selective program and the ability to have standouts, but the program has deliberately decided not to do that. I understand if you like being spoonfed, because there isn't much of a downside for you. However, I'd like to have the discussion about inflation. This doesn't do anything to improve the quality of our future professionals. Nobody benefits from this except the students. Why are taxpayers subsidizing this?

As for the "there are students who deserve these grades" arguments. You can't be serious. I'm attending the most competitive program in the country in my field, and have made all the sacrifices that go along with that. If there was a program anywhere in the country that gave the type of grades BHSc seems content with handing out, I wouldn't have had a chance. Will all professional schools soon only accept those who had the good fortune of being excellent high school students?

[color=#555555][color=#555555]

Literally my point.

You know, every time someone wants to validate their opinion they seem to provide a qualifier like you just did (in bold). Enlighten us, which program, which field, and at which school? I hear everyone learns "a difficult program" at "a top University" online. I'm actually curious though which it is.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

You know, every time someone wants to validate their opinion they seem to provide a qualifier like you just did (in bold). Enlighten us, which program, which field, and at which school? I hear everyone learns "a difficult program" at "a top University" online. I'm actually curious though which it is.

Because the answer to that question undoubtedly identifies me (not pretending that it would be hard), and I'm not in the business of making internet friends, I'm going to take a pass. You'll have to assume I'm studying English Literature at Carleton with an extremely inflated opinion of myself. I'll check myself before trying to make a personal anecdote next time. I really meant to say "one of" anyways, I'd like to deal with one debate at a time.

Thankfully, the qualifier doesn't matter much does it? My point was this- everywhere else, it is nearly impossible to have a perfect year- even with hard work. Why is it widely possible in this program?

I'd still like someone to convince me that this program is beneficial to our future doctors- are you all performing surgeries in your tutorials? This argument that you learned how to memorize while BHSc students learned valuable skills is a pile of horse shit by the way. Thankfully, after developing excellent study skills, you'll establish enough of a command of medical conditions to tell me what my problem is (besides being a dick). I really don't care one way or the other if the diagnosis is delivered confidently, if you have excellent groupwork skills, or whatever else you identified as useful.

I should add, I can understand this issue being near to you considering the fact that you're attending Medical school (congratulations by the way). I'm really not interested in Life Sci. vs Health Sci. either. My concern comes from a deeper fear of creating barriers to mobility within the education system.

---

I don't think anyone is lazier than anyone else. I don't think someone is smarter. What I do think is that the grades in this program are insane.

Whoops, screwed that up*

Originally Posted by zwitter

mountain dew is the best soda ever made.

Give this man a 12.

Honestly, why is this thread still active? Can a mod please just close this thread already?

Originally Posted by WalkerBlue

Because the answer to that question undoubtedly identifies me (not pretending that it would be hard), and I'm not in the business of making internet friends, I'm going to take a pass. You'll have to assume I'm studying English Literature at Carleton with an extremely inflated opinion of myself. I'll check myself before trying to make a personal anecdote next time. I really meant to say "one of" anyways, I'd like to deal with one debate at a time.

Thankfully, the qualifier doesn't matter much does it? My point was this- everywhere else, it is nearly impossible to have a perfect year- even with hard work. Why is it widely possible in this program?

I'd still like someone to convince me that this program is beneficial to our future doctors- are you all performing surgeries in your tutorials? This argument that you learned how to memorize while BHSc students learned valuable skills is a pile of horse shit by the way. Thankfully, after developing excellent study skills, you'll establish enough of a command of medical conditions to tell me what my problem is (besides being a dick). I really don't care one way or the other if the diagnosis is delivered confidently, if you have excellent groupwork skills, or whatever else you identified as useful.

I should add, I can understand this issue being near to you considering the fact that you're attending Medical school (congratulations by the way). I'm really not interested in Life Sci. vs Health Sci. either. My concern comes from a deeper fear of creating barriers to mobility within the education system.

---

I don't think anyone is lazier than anyone else. I don't think someone is smarter. What I do think is that the grades in this program are insane.

I figured you wouldn't give your program and stuff. Couldn't hurt to ask though. I don't blame you though. I just wanted to note that qualifiers like that aren't necessary and in this case don't add anything to your argument.

"My point was this- everywhere else, it is nearly impossible to have a perfect year- even with hard work. Why is it widely possible in this program?"
I don't think that's the case. Nearly impossible would mean no one does well, but anecdotally, I've found that to be untrue. I myself had a 3.99 GPA this year (not in Health Sci), I have friends in Engineering and other programs get similar grades.

"Thankfully, after developing excellent study skills, you'll establish enough of a command of medical conditions to tell me what my problem is (besides being a dick). I really don't care one way or the other if the diagnosis is delivered confidently, if you have excellent groupwork skills, or whatever else you identified as useful."

I think that more is required than mastery of the science material in order to be a good diagnostician, and a good physician in general.
For example, with poor communication skills I wouldn't be able to acquire the info I need from you to make a good diagnosis and understand your symptoms. Another example may be that I prescribe you medication but do not clearly outline what you are supposed to do with it or how it is used. Or I tell you to get a procedure done but do not explain it properly so you don't know what is even going on. Those are three basic examples of lacking in one skill (communication), but you can see how disruptive they would be, even if you had all the medical knowledge in the world.

Medicine is more than crossing off a checklist, and saying "oh when you have these 4 symptoms you have this condition and get treated in this way". If all it took were the knowledge gained by studying in textbooks, we would have already automated healthcare and your doctors would be computers. The reason doctors are people is because physicians need good judgement, good communication skills, good team-working skills (to work with other physicians, nurses, PA's) and others.

I'm simply saying that a lot of those skills, though you do learn them in medicine, are also learned earlier on in the HSc program. So no, they don't learn surgeries in tutorials (though they do have wicked Anatomy labs). But they learn skills important for medicine (and other careers) in general.
I argue that these skills are better developed in HSc, and not in Life Sci.

Sorry - we're not quite arguing the same point here. That's fine though. I'm not disagreeing with you by the way, just playing Devil's Advocate here.

I just wanted to note that qualifiers like that aren't necessary and in this case don't add anything to your argument.

You're absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Medicine is more than crossing off a checklist, and saying "oh when you have these 4 symptoms you have this condition and get treated in this way". If all it took were the knowledge gained by studying in textbooks, we would have already automated healthcare and your doctors would be computers. The reason doctors are people is because physicians need good judgement, good communication skills, good team-working skills (to work with other physicians, nurses, PA's) and others.

That's an interesting point; I've always thought that the GP job is a great place to start automating, particularly given the huge amounts of money the government has to spend on GPs and their practices (not saying that they're overpaid, but they are expensive compared to, say, nurses). The problem of the "personal face" could be dealt with by hiring more nurses -- there's no need for the public to be shown explicitly that their diagnosis is being done by a machine (this tends to scare people for some reason); additionally, the nurses have significant practical knowledge.

Also, I don't think that the reason stopping automation is (entirely) the difficulty of GPs work compared to our technological sophistication. Rather, it seems to be a lack of concrete trials and social motivation towards such an automation, mainly because of social attitudes towards the practice of GPs relative to some field where automation / automation research is widespread.

This may be out of my ignorance as to the complexity of diagnosis, but computers these days are very sophisticated -- of course, there is a significant logical / phenomenological contribution that the GP makes, but it seems that this is rather algorithmic compared to, say, the method of a neurosurgeon or something, and indeed sufficiently algorithmic for computerization. Of course, we'll never know until we try it (hey, maybe we can do this -- math-med supergroup?)

EDIT: I'm not saying that the GP profession can be fully automated, at least not yet. However, it does seem like a computer (plus nurses) could make most of the diagnoses made by a GP.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

I think that more is required than mastery of the science material in order to be a good diagnostician, and a good physician in general.
For example, with poor communication skills I wouldn't be able to acquire the info I need from you to make a good diagnosis and understand your symptoms. Another example may be that I prescribe you medication but do not clearly outline what you are supposed to do with it or how it is used. Or I tell you to get a procedure done but do not explain it properly so you don't know what is even going on. Those are three basic examples of lacking in one skill (communication), but you can see how disruptive they would be, even if you had all the medical knowledge in the world.

Medicine is more than crossing off a checklist, and saying "oh when you have these 4 symptoms you have this condition and get treated in this way". If all it took were the knowledge gained by studying in textbooks, we would have already automated healthcare and your doctors would be computers. The reason doctors are people is because physicians need good judgement, good communication skills, good team-working skills (to work with other physicians, nurses, PA's) and others.

I'm simply saying that a lot of those skills, though you do learn them in medicine, are also learned earlier on in the HSc program. So no, they don't learn surgeries in tutorials (though they do have wicked Anatomy labs). But they learn skills important for medicine (and other careers) in general.
I argue that these skills are better developed in HSc, and not in Life Sci.

Sorry - we're not quite arguing the same point here. That's fine though. I'm not disagreeing with you by the way, just playing Devil's Advocate here.

I don't think anyone was saying that communication skills aren't important...but if you have good communication skills and yet can't memorize the symptoms of x disorder, or can't recognize the symptoms in a patient, nobody cares how amazing you are at communicating or working in a group. Knowledge of science/medicine is more important. That's not to say other skills such as communication aren't (I do agree that they matter a lot if you're a doctor), but lacking medical knowledge will cause a lot more damage to your patients than lacking group working skills.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

That's an interesting point; I've always thought that the GP job is a great place to start automating, particularly given the huge amounts of money the government has to spend on GPs and their practices (not saying that they're overpaid, but they are expensive compared to, say, nurses). The problem of the "personal face" could be dealt with by hiring more nurses -- there's no need for the public to be shown explicitly that their diagnosis is being done by a machine (this tends to scare people for some reason); additionally, the nurses have significant practical knowledge.

Also, I don't think that the reason stopping automation is (entirely) the difficulty of GPs work compared to our technological sophistication. Rather, it seems to be a lack of concrete trials and social motivation towards such an automation, mainly because of social attitudes towards the practice of GPs relative to some field where automation / automation research is widespread.

This may be out of my ignorance as to the complexity of diagnosis, but computers these days are very sophisticated -- of course, there is a significant logical / phenomenological contribution that the GP makes, but it seems that this is rather algorithmic compared to, say, the method of a neurosurgeon or something, and indeed sufficiently algorithmic for computerization. Of course, we'll never know until we try it (hey, maybe we can do this -- math-med supergroup?)

EDIT: I'm not saying that the GP profession can be fully automated, at least not yet. However, it does seem like a computer (plus nurses) could make most of the diagnoses made by a GP.

GPs do more than just make diagnoses and send you for tests or referrals.
There are also certain visual cues doctors look for in the patient, not just listening to the symptoms being described. For example, evaluating the energy level and tone of voice of a depressed patient, or noticing a patient is more jumpy than usual, or even looking for other physical symptoms that the patient hasn't noticed or thought important to mention.