Originally Posted by lookatme

Thank you for such an informative post! It surely enlightened me to why you think many health sci courses were bell curved.

For stats, you said that the course was bell curved because of inadequacies in the course itself, but wasn't the PBL-learning style used for previous years as well? (correct me if I'm wrong!) If the same learning style was used, why was your particular year the only year that got the grade-boost of 3%? Looking at the grade conversion chart, 3% is A LOT... that means the majority of people got a letter grade up. Do you think the profs boosted your grade because it was at a historic low, or do you really think the prof thinks the 'course was inadequate', despite the fact that it was taught that way in the previous years? And again, I just finished my first year so I don't know too much about second year and what not, so please, correct me if I'm wrong.

In previous years for stats, they didn't release the exam grades. They released final grades. You have absolutely no way of knowing if the exam marks were adjusted before the final grades were released and neither do I. I think the fact that they didn't give exam grades suggests that they may have been manipulated in these past years as well. Also the last paragraph of your post makes no sense to me, you are talking about skewness of a distribution. Those are not outliers. Outliers are people far away from a measure of central tendency.

Originally Posted by gggggg

Global health, bioethics and health policies are important, but these things are usually taught in med school from scratch. When you are performing a surgery on someone, I am sure the surgeon wants to know all about global health and canadian health policies when saving someone's life. Communication skills with the patient and other doctors are important, but to be honest, unless you are anti social and very rude, communicating with a patient should not be too hard. When I go see a doctor/surgeon, they usually only take ~5 minutes for consultation and some of them are pretty rude. But at the end of the day, I really dont care much about the doctors communication skills, what I care is if he did the job properly.

I think you are grossly underestimating the importance of communication skills for health processionals ...

I know this is once again anecdotal evidence but: I'm close friends with two people from health sci (both of whom transferred from life sci) and the three of us had a chat once about the health sci grade inflation. They both agreed that health sci was a little easier than life sci (though they could see why some people would think it's the reverse, depending on learning style), but they assured me that there really are no free grades in health sci. Instead you have to work very hard for your marks.

But in their opinion, the reason why there is grade inflation in HealthSci is because your mark is mostly determined by your effort, and not necessarily natural talent, creativity, IQ, etc. This is because, for many health sci courses, there are fewer tests that are worth fewer marks than the average life science class. Instead you have many projects, the mark for which is more a function of who the smartest/hardworking person in your group is, how long you spend polishing it, etc.

So yeah, that's what I heard. And it makes sense too. In most other courses, you can study as much as you want, but your grades are also limited by your intelligent/ability to retain and understand the information given to you.

So maybe that's an issue with health sci. But regardless, I do think there is some grade inflation in the program. Probably not as much as most people think, but there is simply no way that that many people should have 4.00s when you look at science, a faculty that has like x10 more people, but with like a fourth of the Provost winners that health sci has. And last time I checked, science courses are mostly free of subjective marking.

I think if I was in health sci, I would want to deny that there is grade inflation too. I mean, they are working hard in their courses, they probably feel that they deserve good marks, so if I was on the inside looking out I would want to defend my program. That's the only way I can rationalize them denying that their is grade inflation without getting angry, lolz.

Originally Posted by yoni

In previous years for stats, they didn't release the exam grades. They released final grades. You have absolutely no way of knowing if the exam marks were adjusted before the final grades were released and neither do I. I think the fact that they didn't give exam grades suggests that they may have been manipulated in these past years as well. Also the last paragraph of your post makes no sense to me, you are talking about skewness of a distribution. Those are not outliers. Outliers are people far away from a measure of central tendency.

But lack of evidence does not provide evidence to the contrary though. And yes, you are right. Outlier is not the right term. All I'm saying is that with a smaller amount of people, it is more probable for them to not follow a normal distribution. Think of it this way -- 10 people in a course may not follow a normal distribution as closely as 1000 people taking the same course. Therefore, it is more justified for courses such as orgo, which have more students taking them, to bell curve, as opposed to health sci courses.

Originally Posted by husayn12

I think you are grossly underestimating the importance of communication skills for health processionals ...

Im not underestimating at all. I am saying that a physician's skills or medical knowledge outweigh their weakness in communication. For example, a physician called Dr.House is unable to communicate properly with his patients or coworkers, however, his vast knowledge in medicine allows him to be successful in his field. Similarly, I want my doctor to be competent and knows what hes doing rather than being a charming person who knows to communicate with the patients.

Originally Posted by UbberBubba

I know this is once again anecdotal evidence but: I'm close friends with two people from health sci (both of whom transferred from life sci) and the three of us had a chat once about the health sci grade inflation. They both agreed that health sci was a little easier than life sci (though they could see why some people would think it's the reverse, depending on learning style), but they assured me that there really are no free grades in health sci. Instead you have to work very hard for your marks.

But in their opinion, the reason why there is grade inflation in HealthSci is because your mark is mostly determined by your effort, and not necessarily natural talent, creativity, IQ, etc. This is because, for many health sci courses, there are fewer tests that are worth fewer marks than the average life science class. Instead you have many projects, the mark for which is more a function of who the smartest/hardworking person in your group is, how long you spend polishing it, etc.

So yeah, that's what I heard. And it makes sense too. In most other courses, you can study as much as you want, but your grades are also limited by your intelligent/ability to retain and understand the information given to you.

So maybe that's an issue with health sci. But regardless, I do think there is some grade inflation in the program. Probably not as much as most people think, but there is simply no way that that many people should have 4.00s when you look at science, a faculty that has like x10 more people, but with like a fourth of the Provost winners that health sci has. And last time I checked, science courses are mostly free of subjective marking.

I think if I was in health sci, I would want to deny that there is grade inflation too. I mean, they are working hard in their courses, they probably feel that they deserve good marks, so if I was on the inside looking out I would want to defend my program. That's the only way I can rationalize them denying that their is grade inflation without getting angry, lolz.

I don't think that health sci courses depend just on effort. You are right in that health sci courses have less "high stake" evaluations, like final exams worth 70% of your mark... Speaking as a student going into my second year, we definitely had A LOT of papers that we work on as a group, and with all those inquiry reflections, we could take advantage of each individual's strengths to make the assignment as strong as possible.

Also, to those who say that life sci and health sci are different programs that cater to different individuals with different learning styles...

I completely agree with you. Each program has its advantages and disadvantages, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't compare them. Grad school, med school, optometry, dentistry, etc. certainly doesn't. Graduate and professional schools look blindly at your grades... they don't discriminate based on program, so in my eyes, it IS unfair if an individual cruised through an easier program and managed to get into the professional school of their choice just because they have time to do more extra-curriculars. To those that say that both programs have their strengths and weaknesses, I agree with you, but that doesn't mean we should stop comparing them. That doesn't mean we should stifle communication and just take things as they are. As Socrates said, "the unexamined life is not living," (I know we're not examining life here but the idea is the same). There are definite disadvantages of health science and this is something that should be talked about, not shoved under the carpet under the excuse that "we are just a different program".

Originally Posted by gggggg

Im not underestimating at all. I am saying that a physician's skills or medical knowledge outweigh their weakness in communication. For example, a physician called Dr.House is unable to communicate properly with his patients or coworkers, however, his vast knowledge in medicine allows him to be successful in his field. Similarly, I want my doctor to be competent and knows what hes doing rather than being a charming person who knows to communicate with the patients.

This is the biggest false dichotomy I've ever seen.

If I asked you, would you prefer a student who was intelligent, hard working, and had good skills necessary to become a good physician? Or would you prefer someone who had gotten 90s but couldn't speak English?

You would be really strange if you wanted someone who was academically successful but couldn't speak English.

Your entire premise rests on the idea that there's a trade-off between academic skills and other skills (often referred to as soft skills). Here's a thought: they aren't mutually exclusive. You create an "obvious" choice but this is more like a straw man since charming and stupid vs. successful and rude was never being discussed. Instead, we're discussing the importance of skills BEFORE you learn the knowledge of medicine (in medical school). Health sci's not studying from textbooks as much as other programs doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean they will have less knowledge as a physician. It doesn't mean they will be "charming" but not know what they're doing.

Originally Posted by gggggg

Im not underestimating at all. I am saying that a physician's skills or medical knowledge outweigh their weakness in communication. For example, a physician called Dr.House is unable to communicate properly with his patients or coworkers, however, his vast knowledge in medicine allows him to be successful in his field. Similarly, I want my doctor to be competent and knows what hes doing rather than being a charming person who knows to communicate with the patients.

This...
Should try a House for my med school interview.

I highly regret ever venturing to use the Medical field as an example... it's really neither here nor there.

The goal of any adjustment isn't to reach a particular range, it's to make up for inadequacies in the course itself. That's why I don't consider the average before the adjustment relevant. Just because the average was 75 doesn't mean that we weren't hindered from achieving a higher mark.

The goal of every adjustment is to reach a particular range. What the hell is wrong with some of you? You're admitting to preferential treatment then providing the worst rationalization possible. Why the else do you think professors curve grades, because it makes them happy to do so?

The professor wanted to reach a particular range, and that range is 10% higher than the rest of us get. So, a bunch of students who are awful at statistics were rewarded for being in the right faculty.

Originally Posted by gggggg

Im not underestimating at all. I am saying that a physician's skills or medical knowledge outweigh their weakness in communication. For example, a physician called Dr.House is unable to communicate properly with his patients or coworkers, however, his vast knowledge in medicine allows him to be successful in his field. Similarly, I want my doctor to be competent and knows what hes doing rather than being a charming person who knows to communicate with the patients.

Do you know anything about the medical school application process? If so you'd know that business majors and art majors are considered equal to LifeScis. Who has more science knowledge? Probably the LifeSci but medschools don't care because they exist to teach you relevant medical knowledge.

Also do you know that 4/6 medical schools in Ontario namely Mac, Western, NOSM and Queens (starting next year) have 0, that's right none science prerequisites. Why don't you understand that the whole reason you go to medical school is to gain the relevant knowledge? Otherwise why not just become a physician straight after undergrad? Or why not just accept science students into med schools?

Originally Posted by Aeria

Do you know anything about the medical school application process? If so you'd know that business majors and art majors are considered equal to LifeScis. Who has more science knowledge? Probably the LifeSci but medschools don't care because they exist to teach you relevant medical knowledge.

Also do you know that 4/6 medical schools in Ontario namely Mac, Western, NOSM and Queens (starting next year) have 0, that's right none science prerequisites. Why don't you understand that the whole reason you go to medical school is to gain the relevant knowledge? Otherwise why not just become a physician straight after undergrad? Or why not just accept science students into med schools?

I agree with this completely. And before anyone says "the MCAT tests your science ability so you don't need the pre-reqs!!" - this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the AAMC is testing and what admissions committees are looking for. The MCAT is not a science test - it is a critical reading test. The science knowledge you need is very rudimentary, even high school level science. But it's difficult not because of the amount of content, but because critical thinking and reasoning is difficult.

The biological sciences section in the last couple years is more like a second verbal - you barely need to study it, you just need to be able to reason and think.

Pretty much every school looks at verbal, and Mac only looks at verbal - this section has nothing to do with science whatsoever. Some humanities students destroy this section of the MCAT because they have spent years honing their skills (again, not their knowledge). And the clever ones who can spend a few months studying and do well in the sciences have a good shot at getting into medical school. Even if they haven't taken years of science courses.

There is a reason why most students refer to first year medicine as "basic sciences" - because they teach you the basic sciences you need.

Originally Posted by gggggg

Im not underestimating at all. I am saying that a physician's skills or medical knowledge outweigh their weakness in communication. For example, a physician called Dr.House is unable to communicate properly with his patients or coworkers, however, his vast knowledge in medicine allows him to be successful in his field. Similarly, I want my doctor to be competent and knows what hes doing rather than being a charming person who knows to communicate with the patients.

Stop watching too much TV

Originally Posted by UbberBubba

So yeah, that's what I heard. And it makes sense too. In most other courses, you can study as much as you want, but your grades are also limited by your intelligent/ability to retain and understand the information given to you.

I don't know what to say to you other than the fact that I'm extremely ungifted naturally, and have compounded the problem by doing my share of drugs in highschool. My courses have typically been ~100% tests. My grades are entirely a function of effort, and they're not bad. Of course I write the occasional bad test.

All you've really said is that those courses take all the risk out of it.

A friend of mine has a father who is a CEO, and his usual comment is that every person he's ever fired has claimed to be the hardest working person at the company. Everyone likes to think they've got great work ethic.

The best students in every faculty are extremely hard working. Once again, the BHSc kids are better rewarded for their hard work, and there's no good reason why.

The following statistics come from
http://www.mcmaster.ca/avpira/statis...rad07 11.html
and
http://sfas.mcmaster.ca/pdf/2011/201...or%20award.pdf

Assuming there are 160 students in BHSc level 1 and 180 students in levels 2-4, there are about 700 students in the HthSci program. The number of students in HthSci with an 11.8 or higher is about 140. So the top 20% of HthScis got an 11.8 or higher sessional average

The number of science students with an 11.8 or higher is about 67. Since there are 5500 full-time students in the faculty of science, it means that the top 1.2% of science has an 11.8 or higher. So the top 1.2% of science students have the same sessional average as the top 20% of HthSci students?? How is that fair??

Also about 20% of HthScis get these two scholarships, while only 6.5% of science students get these scholarships.

With this, I think everyone can agree that there is no denying that there is grade inflation in HthSci, though I must say that the amount of scholarships they receive is not that unreasonable.

PS. From the admissions website, I think it’s fair to say that the average science student coming into McMaster has an average of somewhere in the high 80s (based on the admission averages needed for the various science programs) while the average health science student probably has somewhere around 95. Not that big of a difference at all, especially when you consider the reliability of high school averages. So one can't use that as an argument for the university averages obtained by HthScis.

Originally Posted by UbberBubba

The following statistics come from
http://www.mcmaster.ca/avpira/statis...rad07 11.html
and
http://sfas.mcmaster.ca/pdf/2011/201...or%20award.pdf

Assuming there are 160 students in BHSc level 1 and 180 students in levels 2-4, there are about 700 students in the HthSci program. The number of students in HthSci with an 11.8 or higher is about 140. So the top 20% of HthScis got an 11.8 or higher sessional average

The number of science students with an 11.8 or higher is about 67. Since there are 5500 full-time students in the faculty of science, it means that the top 1.2% of science has an 11.8 or higher. So the top 1.2% of science students have the same sessional average as the top 20% of HthSci students?? How is that fair??

Also about 20% of HthScis get these two scholarships, while only 6.5% of science students get these scholarships.

With this, I think everyone can agree that there is no denying that there is grade inflation in HthSci, though I must say that the amount of scholarships they receive is not that unreasonable.

PS. From the admissions website, I think it’s fair to say that the average science student coming into McMaster has an average of somewhere in the high 80s (based on the admission averages needed for the various science programs) while the average health science student probably has somewhere around 95. Not that big of a difference at all, especially when you consider the reliability of high school averages. So one can't use that as an argument for the university averages obtained by HthScis.

When you directly compare two facts like these you assume that every single student in Science would be able to get into Health Science had they applied; meaning that every single science student could be compared to a health science student in respect to their ability to learn, study, and perform in tests/assignment/etc...

Although in my personal opinion I do think that grades are slightly inflated, I do not believe they are greatly inflated as you would have us believe. You have to also consider that not all the courses they take are from the health science department.