actually she meant a special program as in for students who are not as smart as other students ...cuz i told her my marks n she was like... ohhhhh

Originally Posted by MCHEDDENITE

thats ok ... baby steps lol im not expecting much but something is better than nothing right. i spoke with an academic advisor n she suggested that i take chem 2e03 (which im doing n e wayz) n that i shuldnt even attempt 2a03 n 2b03 (which i thought was rude) but i guess she knows her thing. Dr.wilson was the worst though she said i shuld go see if i shuld be in like a special program ... i felt flike smacking her (this was at the level 2 course fair thing)

The academic advisors tend to assume the student in front of them is dumber than they are, and almost always recommend that you take the 'easier' courses over their 'harder' counterparts. See physics 1L03 and math 1LS3 as examples. If you insist that you're good at the subject and willing to take the harder course, usually they'll accept that and help you plan around it, but I've noticed they don't seem particularly interested in taking courses because they might be useful or required later on, they're more interesting in having you take the easiest courses possible. Other people might have had other experiences, but every single time I've contacted one of the science academic advisors, that has been the situation.

LOL Dr Wilson is...er...blunt. Although I'm not quite sure what she meant by 'special program'? (Edit: ohh, you just answered this...that doesn't really surprise me lol)
Programs have enrollment limits for a reason, and that reason is usually money-related and therefore they're unlikely to remove enrollment caps anytime soon. The most efficient way for deciding admissions into limited enrollment programs for level 2 is through grades. As such, the number of people with the highest grades will get into the program. If you had below those grades, then you weren't good enough to beat out the competition. They say you need at least a 6.0 to be considered, meaning they think that someone with below a 6.0 doesn't have a good enough grasp of the required material to be successful in the program. Obviously grades aren't everything, and you can still do well in the program with below a 6.0 (this is an arbitrary cut-off...there is little difference between the knowledge attained by someone with a 5.9 and 6.1, especially when you factor in electives), but that is likely where Dr Wilson was coming from--they want the best/smartest people in their programs, and grades is the biggest way they judge that. If you work hard and bring up your average, there is no reason you can't get into the program you want.

i wud but trust me i can't it requires the orgos n physics 1b03 n i just don't get them at all nd i dont wanna waste money of courses i know im not gonna do good cuz i have to get a good CA this year to switch into an honours program. after first year the only courses i know i like are bio ones its my strength.

If biochem or molecular bio/genetics is the best way to get there, then you shouldn't let physics stand in your way. You won't have to take orgo until you actually get into an honours program. Have you considered taking physics in the summer, when you can devote most of your time to it?

but see i didnt find math 1ls3 n physics 1l03 easy. Im dont really like formulas or math at all. calculus was so brutal n physics was the worst cuz i honestly didnt get it till like the very end(never did physics be4 until last year). I wanted to specialize in just molecular bio but then i found out it was being phased out and they made molecular bio n genetics n that just didnt fit wit me. thanks for all the help, im gonna go back to an advisor n figure this all out. im sure hnours bio will get me where i need to be somehow.

grades arent the most effcient way to see whos "smart" . a girl i know cheated her entire way through highschool .. like 90+ avg n got into everything she wanted and got $40, 000 in scholarships , but wasnt able to cheat as much in univserity and got kicked out of program n switched in soc sci. point being marks are flawed sometimes

Originally Posted by MCHEDDENITE

grades arent the most effcient way to see whos "smart" . a girl i know cheated her entire way through highschool .. like 90+ avg n got into everything she wanted and got $40, 000 in scholarships , but wasnt able to cheat as much in univserity and got kicked out of program n switched in soc sci. point being marks are flawed sometimes

They are the most efficient way, they're just not necessarily the most accurate way. But because they're efficient and the best tool we have, that is what we use. I never said it's a true indicator of intelligence, though. At best, it's an approximate indication of what percentage of material we understood/remembered from what we were taught. Grad schools and professional schools and everything, though, they all use marks, so if you want to get into these programs you have to get the marks, whether or not it's an accurate indication. It's so easy to dismiss all applicants with, say, below a 6.0, rather than take the time to look at each application or interview each applicant--hence the efficiency and widespread use. In theory, if you have a 60% average, you only learned 60% of the material you were supposed to, and that is part of the rationale for having minimum mark cutoffs.

Originally Posted by nerual

They are the most efficient way, they're just not necessarily the most accurate way. But because they're efficient and the best tool we have, that is what we use. I never said it's a true indicator of intelligence, though. At best, it's an approximate indication of what percentage of material we understood/remembered from what we were taught. Grad schools and professional schools and everything, though, they all use marks, so if you want to get into these programs you have to get the marks, whether or not it's an accurate indication. It's so easy to dismiss all applicants with, say, below a 6.0, rather than take the time to look at each application or interview each applicant--hence the efficiency and widespread use. In theory, if you have a 60% average, you only learned 60% of the material you were supposed to, and that is part of the rationale for having minimum mark cutoffs.

The term "smart" is completely subjective in the view of universities. You can fail a lot of courses but it could just be because you think differently than the general population. This difference in thinking can bring great changes to society.

yeah but that's theory , its not neccessarily accurate. u culd do awful in all r science courses n ace like ur language courses n bring ur CA wayyy up. does it mean ur better at chem then someone with a lower CA. i dunno i think marks arent good enough anymore, I mean does the kid who tries so hard n gets a 5.9, is he any less intelligent as the the kid who gets the 6.0... no he's not but then his dreams are wrecked ....maybe i just hate numbers lol. its easy to say look u didnt get the marks thats that, but stuff culd have happened through the term and there's all these external factors that come into play. for example that whole bio 1m03 thing last year where like almost every got 10+ first semester but 2nd semester with that prof quinn where almost everyone failed the first midterm an everyone got a lower grade . like in theory the course is suppose to be the same but i showed someoewho took it first semester n shes like wtf are studying !!! we never did this it was sooo easy etc.

Originally Posted by MCHEDDENITE

yeah but that's theory , its not neccessarily accurate. u culd do awful in all r science courses n ace like ur language courses n bring ur CA wayyy up. does it mean ur better at chem then someone with a lower CA. i dunno i think marks arent good enough anymore, I mean does the kid who tries so hard n gets a 5.9, is he any less intelligent as the the kid who gets the 6.0... no he's not but then his dreams are wrecked ....maybe i just hate numbers lol. its easy to say look u didnt get the marks thats that, but stuff culd have happened through the term and there's all these external factors that come into play. for example that whole bio 1m03 thing last year where like almost every got 10+ first semester but 2nd semester with that prof quinn where almost everyone failed the first midterm an everyone got a lower grade . like in theory the course is suppose to be the same but i showed someoewho took it first semester n shes like wtf are studying !!! we never did this it was sooo easy etc.

Yes, it is theory, and I never said it translated into accurate practice...but it is the best method people have come up with. Also, for admissions into level 2 programs at mac, they tend to look at specific courses, not just the overall average. Many programs need at least a certain grade in specific courses. The kid who gets a 5.9 might not be any less intelligent, maybe he had a bad day...or maybe he partied the night before the exam...or had 3 exams in 2 days...or maybe he genuinely didn't understand the material, or maybe some combination of the above resulted in him not learning the material. However, no efficient screening process actually exists that can reliably determine why each applicant got the grade they did. There are still options available to bring up your grade--for example, some people take 1-2 courses during the summer or online via Athabasca to bring up their grades by the time Sept rolls around, to see if they can at least move up to Honours Life Sci (which is not a limited enrollment program iirc), or taking an extra year to improve grades and make up courses before transferring into the program of their choice. It's not like you only have one chance and that's it.

Having a harder prof in one course isn't an excuse for a low overall average--I had the exact same situation with one of my courses last year, where the people who took it first term took one look at our test and said, "I have absolutely no idea what the answers to any of these questions are--it doesn't even look vaguely familiar". It sucks, but you're responsible for learning the material anyways. There is a difference between bad profs, and difficult profs--and, you weren't the only kid stuck with a harder prof, it was everyone who took it second term. That helps level out the playing field when you're competing against your classmates for admissions into level 2 programs. This is the system, and unless you can come up with something better and a way to implement the change, you have to learn to work within it.

People always say that marks don't mean anything...but really, would you rather a doctor with a 70% average or a doctor with a 90% average (assuming the doctors didn't cheat and legitimately earned their marks)? If your life is in that doctor's hands, it doesn't really matter whether or not the doctor had extenuating personal circumstances leading to the lower mark, at the end of the day, they still don't know the material as well, and until they do, I wouldn't trust them to treat me. That doesn't necessarily mean the person with a 90% average is a good doctor, they could end up being a terrible doctor, but I would initially trust their knowledge/judgement more, at least until I had some concrete experience to judge them by. The 70% person could still end up becoming an amazing doctor, but they would have to find some way to make up for that knowledge that they're missing, first. Of course there are exceptions to this, but most of the time it holds true. (I'm assuming they were graded using the same system...if 90% person comes from school A that marks really easy, and 70% person comes from school B with a really difficult curriculum, then this argument falls apart...but that's an entirely separate issue, and not really relevent to getting into level 2 programs at mac )

There is always more than one way of getting to where you want to be. It might take you a bit longer, but you can still get there.

n hence why i hate the system! its flawed. lol now i've become inspired to change the system too so much injustice in the world so little time myb i shuld tackle solar first lol

btttww thanks for ur input!!!! now be4 everyone forgets about this thread maybe i can hear from someone in honours bio ??? just wondering