Originally Posted by jhan523

I don't know what I can say to you. University is the way it is because the students have no idea what they want to learn. If the majority of students knew what they wanted to do coming into university, I think it would be a lot different than how it is now. Not everything goes my way in life and I know that. I just deal with how life and I don't let it interfere with my goals.

That is not necessarily true. Some University students have a general idea about what field they want to get into, and some courses we find interesting - while others do not. What I am trying to say, is that not everything within a particular field may interest you, why not take just the ones that get you hard?

Originally Posted by dsahota

The courses for specializations and degrees in sciences and engineering (which is what I'm most familiar with) are not just chosen by some random process and cobbled together.

I know courses aren't randomly picked for a program, and there is a great deal of time put into the process in developing the curriculum. That being said, I must say those on the comittee are inherently biased, whether they like it or not - and this is due to their former education. Their past experiences in education serves as the model to develop on. For example, someone who is in biology may have a strong background in chemistry, and this opinion may subtley be reflected in the course selection process of a program. These are relevant fields, and there is no doubt that taking upper year chemistry courses may serve to enlighten notions governing the doctrines of biology - yet I ask, could we have managed to obtain our degree without learning such? This is unfortunately difficult to evaluate, as trends constantly change, dictating what is deemed to be important in society. Such an example would be the aforemetioned implementation of the stats course in engineering.

You strived to change one aspect of your program, and you succeeded - so surely you felt there was something in your curiculum which you didn't feel was necessary. Such an example is a testament that these comittees aren't perfect in coming up with the courses. There are indoubtedly a lot of complicated factors to consider which define and delineate our curriculum.

Originally Posted by nerual

To continue on with your organic chemistry example, I do have to take 3rd year organic chem. This is coming from someone who didn't even want to take SECOND year organic chem. I resigned myself to the fact that I'd have to take it (all of the programs I was interested in required it), and it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be--I think the only reason I was dreading it so much is because I'd heard (from upper years, high school teachers, etc) that 2nd year orgo is awful and hard. Now that I've taken it, I fully see the value in doing so--much more than I would have been able to prior to taking the course--and it was easier because I wasn't hating it the whole time. I had resigned myself to taking it, thus I was able to develop a positive attitude about it and it wasn't bad at all.

Perhaps you did not understand my point here. It seems like you are comparing apples and oranges here. This does serve to the basis of knowledge, which underlies many of the principles taught in upper years of your program. I noticed that you are in Chemical Biology. Organic chemistry and analytical chemistry are directly related to your program - you wouldn't be able to take upper year courses if you didn't do so. I'll put it in familiar context for you. Genetics (BIO 2C03) is a required course for your program, do you really think that it'll help you in terms of your chemical biology degree? Sure, its relevant to your field - but does taking it really necessary - that is the question I ask? More so, your program does not require PHYSICS 1BB3 - well, undoubtedly higher level chemistry/chemical courses are based on physics. While there is value in taking the course, as such pertains with all courses that are relevant to your degree, it is not necessary and one can manage without it.

Originally Posted by nerual

Just because a course doesn't serve as a prereq for higher-level courses, doesn't mean it isn't important and you won't gain value from learning it. Part of the implication of graduating with a Life Sciences degree from McMaster is that you will have an understanding of the course material. If you don't, then you shouldn't graduate with that degree. If you're so convinced it's hard and you'll do badly in it, then that's even more reason to take it, since you're not competent in the subject to begin with. You're here to learn. Even if you don't necessarily like a subject (for example, I despise analytical chemistry and statistics), that doesn't mean it doesn't have value and won't be useful to you in the long run. Even if you're convinced it's a waste of time, you don't actually know what specifically you'll learn from it. There's a very good reason it's part of the program. Not wanting to take it because you think it will drop your mark is a very bad reason for not wanting to take it, and I would be very disappointed in McMaster if they let you graduate without this course. It cheapens the degree of everyone who's in Life Sciences, and even the degree of everyone at McMaster.

All courses provide knowledge and value to us. I would sure hope so since we are paying a hefty sum for tuition. Choosing the ones that are the most beneficial and interesting to us are the two factors to look for.
What I am trying to say is that I am not interested in this particular course, and it doesn't directly serve as a pre-req for any other courses for my degree. I am questioning the importance of this course. The fact that it is hard and difficult just serves as a secondary motivator which fuels my opinions against taking this course.

Originally Posted by jordan19

That is not necessarily true. Some University students have a general idea about what field they want to get into, and some courses we find interesting - while others do not. What I am trying to say, is that not everything within a particular field may interest you, why not take just the ones that get you hard?

It is actually true, most students only know that they want to go into Biology, or Physics, or Chemistry, etc... These are very general fields and branch into multiple subsections. It's the universities responsibility to allow students to experience all aspects of the field they are willing to enter in order to help them choose what subsection they want to get into.

Originally Posted by jordan19

Perhaps you did not understand my point here. It seems like you are comparing apples and oranges here. This does serve to the basis of knowledge, which underlies many of the principles taught in upper years of your program. I noticed that you are in Chemical Biology. Organic chemistry and analytical chemistry are directly related to your program - you wouldn't be able to take upper year courses if you didn't do so. I'll put it in familiar context for you. Genetics (BIO 2C03) is a required course for your program, do you really think that it'll help you in terms of your chemical biology degree? Sure, its relevant to your field - but does taking it really necessary - that is the question I ask? More so, your program does not require PHYSICS 1BB3 - well, undoubtedly higher level chemistry/chemical courses are based on physics. While there is value in taking the course, as such pertains with all courses that are relevant to your degree, it is not necessary and one can manage without it.

Actually, 3AA3 (the analytical course I was referring to) isn't a prerequisite for any other courses (except for one that is NOT required for my degree). I know that what I want to go into will not require an indepth knowledge of analytical chemistry. I have zero desire to go into ANYTHING that requires an indepth knowledge of analytical chemistry. But part of my degree is having this knowledge, regardless of whether or not I care or plan to use it in the future. I could spend the rest of my life in a chembio-related field without having taken chem 3AA3. Even though I don't like it and won't end up using much of it, I can still see the value in knowing it--extra knowledge is never a bad thing--and I can understand why it's a program requirement.

I was using orgo more as an example of how attitude makes a difference. Before taking the course, I didn't think it would be useful, I thought it would be really hard, and I didn't want to take it. If I'd had that attitude the whole way through, it would have been a much worse experience, and it would have closed my mind to the many many many uses of organic chemistry. Also, orgo is required for many biology programs, so it's not just because I'm in chembio--all of my program options for level 2 required orgo, which is why I resigned myself to taking it. I wasn't going to not go into a program I'm interested in just because of 2nd year orgo.

They are actually considering dropping Bio 2C03 as a program requirement, since it is useful if you want to delve into something that requires knowledge of genetics, but otherwise most of the course material is covered in biochem 2B03 and high school/first year biology. However, it's a pretty easy course that is guaranteed to boost your GPA, so there aren't really that many complaints about it.

Yes, my program doesn't require Phys1BB3...so I fail to see your point here. It was decided that 1BB3 isn't necessary for a chembio degree. If for some reason they decided it was, then there would have to be something different about the course (or the program) that makes it necessary, in which case I still wouldn't see your point.

Originally Posted by jordan19

All courses provide knowledge and value to us. I would sure hope so since we are paying a hefty sum for tuition. Choosing the ones that are the most beneficial and interesting to us are the two factors to look for.
What I am trying to say is that I am not interested in this particular course, and it doesn't directly serve as a pre-req for any other courses for my degree. I am questioning the importance of this course. The fact that it is hard and difficult just serves as a secondary motivator which fuels my opinions against taking this course.

Yes, beneficial and interesting are two factors to consider when choosing courses. However, as the course in question is required, you don't get to choose it. It was chosen for you when you decided to go into Life Sciences. Also, beneficial and interesting don't necessarily go together. This course could be immensely beneficial, but dead boring. You don't have nearly as much experience in the field as the people who picked this course as a requirement, so you don't really have much to go on if you're trying to argue the irrelevance of this course. You will learn some transferable skills, even if it's something as simple as how to write a good report (communication skills). However, if you have a bad attitude towards the course and already decide ahead of time that you won't learn anything useful, then even if you take the course, you'll be missing out on an opportunity to improve your skills. No one ends up using the course material from every single course in their undergrad--looking back, there are courses anyone could have done without. But, it's harder to separate the course material from the 'soft skills' you learned from it. For example, a huge reason they require so much math in high school isn't so much for the content (most people's lives would not change at all if they didn't know how to graph a parabola), but for the critical thinking skills that you develop from being able to think in a mathematical/logical way.

The difficulty of the course should be irrelevant. Beneficial and interesting are entirely unrelated to how difficult a course is. A course can be the easiest thing in the world, but put you to sleep, or be really hard, but incredibly fascinating. In many cases (though not all), the harder a course is, the more benefit you get from taking it (and being an active participant), since you're learning way more from it that you would from a bird course where you already know most of the material.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nerual
They are actually considering dropping Bio 2C03 as a program requirement, since it is useful if you want to delve into something that requires knowledge of genetics, but otherwise most of the course material is covered in biochem 2B03 and high school/first year biology. However, it's a pretty easy course that is guaranteed to boost your GPA, so there aren't really that many complaints about it.

Yes, my program doesn't require Phys1BB3...so I fail to see your point here. It was decided that 1BB3 isn't necessary for a chembio degree. If for some reason they decided it was, then there would have to be something different about the course (or the program) that makes it necessary, in which case I still wouldn't see your point.

You clearly haven't understood my comment. So lets say Biology 2C03 turned out to be one of the harder if not hardest courses? So your telling me that you'd blindly accept and learn what other people tell you rather than evaluating it's value and context in your field? If Biology 2C03 did turn out to be a really hard course, would you take it? If not, then you will find yourself in a similar situation to what I am in.

As for Physics 1BB3, if it turned out that the comittee spontaneously decided that it should be implemented into the curriculum, it would undoubtedly prove to be beneficial and those who take it may confer a better understanding of chemical principles for the future. This is not necessary. There are subtle differences in some pre-req courses, as I have mentioned. Some are definitely required for understanding knowledge, while there are some, that are rare, which fall slightly outside of this spectra. Implementing PHYS 1BB3 (hypothetically) is analogous to Biology 2C03, both are similar in the sense that they are useful for future courses. Your whole argument treats pre-requisites for programs as absolutes. "If they are required, they MUST be rather important" - This is not the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerual
Yes, beneficial and interesting are two factors to consider when choosing courses. However, as the course in question is required, you don't get to choose it. It was chosen for you when you decided to go into Life Sciences. Also, beneficial and interesting don't necessarily go together. This course could be immensely beneficial, but dead boring. You don't have nearly as much experience in the field as the people who picked this course as a requirement, so you don't really have much to go on if you're trying to argue the irrelevance of this course. You will learn some transferable skills, even if it's something as simple as how to write a good report (communication skills). However, if you have a bad attitude towards the course and already decide ahead of time that you won't learn anything useful, then even if you take the course, you'll be missing out on an opportunity to improve your skills. No one ends up using the course material from every single course in their undergrad--looking back, there are courses anyone could have done without. But, it's harder to separate the course material from the 'soft skills' you learned from it. For example, a huge reason they require so much math in high school isn't so much for the content (most people's lives would not change at all if they didn't know how to graph a parabola), but for the critical thinking skills that you develop from being able to think in a mathematical/logical way.

The difficulty of the course should be irrelevant. Beneficial and interesting are entirely unrelated to how difficult a course is. A course can be the easiest thing in the world, but put you to sleep, or be really hard, but incredibly fascinating. In many cases (though not all), the harder a course is, the more benefit you get from taking it (and being an active participant), since you're learning way more from it that you would from a bird course where you already know most of the material.

While you cannot satisfy both of these criteria at the same time, you must at least satisfy one. If both of these are not satisfied, then whats the point of taking the course? Well - then there's another motivator, it must be a bird course. So if a course doesn't fall into the realm of such criterion, and is not truly necessary - unless it's easy - why does one need to take such a course??

Originally Posted by jordan19

Quote:
Originally Posted by nerual
They are actually considering dropping Bio 2C03 as a program requirement, since it is useful if you want to delve into something that requires knowledge of genetics, but otherwise most of the course material is covered in biochem 2B03 and high school/first year biology. However, it's a pretty easy course that is guaranteed to boost your GPA, so there aren't really that many complaints about it.

Yes, my program doesn't require Phys1BB3...so I fail to see your point here. It was decided that 1BB3 isn't necessary for a chembio degree. If for some reason they decided it was, then there would have to be something different about the course (or the program) that makes it necessary, in which case I still wouldn't see your point.

You clearly haven't understood my comment. So lets say Biology 2C03 turned out to be one of the harder if not hardest courses? So your telling me that you'd blindly accept and learn what other people tell you rather than evaluating it's value and context in your field? If Biology 2C03 did turn out to be a really hard course, would you take it? If not, then you will find yourself in a similar situation to what I am in.

As for Physics 1BB3, if it turned out that the comittee spontaneously decided that it should be implemented into the curriculum, it would undoubtedly prove to be beneficial and those who take it may confer a better understanding of chemical principles for the future. This is not necessary. There are subtle differences in some pre-req courses, as I have mentioned. Some are definitely required for understanding knowledge, while there are some, that are rare, which fall slightly outside of this spectra. Implementing PHYS 1BB3 (hypothetically) is analogous to Biology 2C03, both are similar in the sense that they are useful for future courses. Your whole argument treats pre-requisites for programs as absolutes. "If they are required, they MUST be rather important" - This is not the case.

You're treating real courses as if they were hypotheticals, though. You're treating genetics as if it were hypothetically difficult. It isn't. If it was, maybe it wouldn't be a requirement. If they changed the content to make it more difficult, maybe that new content would have extreme relevance to chembio. It would be the same with phys1BB3--if they decided to add it in, then it would be because something (either about the course or the program) changed, because as it stands, the course isn't deemed necessary, for a reason. You're trying to make up a hypothetical scenario in which the course, as it stands, becomes a requirement, which ignores the entire thought process behind picking required courses. Phys1BB3 is recommended, but NOT REQUIRED for a reason. You can't just make up a hypothetical course for your argument, because it makes no sense. If you say "well, let's say you had a course you werent interested in and was really hard as part of your program", you're ignoring any thought process/reasoning as to WHY that course is a requirement in the first place. As I stated earlier, there ARE courses in my program I'm not interested in that I find really hard, however when I consider the reason they're part of the program, it makes sense. You still haven't said what course it is that you don't want to take, which is part of the reason we ended up debating my course requirements instead of yours, when you're the one with the issue.

Originally Posted by jordan19

While you cannot satisfy both of these criteria at the same time, you must at least satisfy one. If both of these are not satisfied, then whats the point of taking the course? Well - then there's another motivator, it must be a bird course. So if a course doesn't fall into the realm of such criterion, and is not truly necessary - unless it's easy - why does one need to take such a course??

You're falsely assuming you won't get any benefit from the course, though. You haven't taken the course, you don't know what benefits you might get from it. The benefit of a course goes beyond the simple course material. Seriously, in this case, the biggest benefit to you might be learning to suck it up and take a course you don't like/find difficult, and do well in it anyways. It's a good life skill--you're not always going to be doing something you find easy, or relevant, but you should still be able to put your personal opinions aside and do your job well. You might even end up interested in it! Plenty of people change their majors, often due to a single course that they ended up really liking. If they'd thought they would like the subject that much beforehand, they would have been in that major to begin with (in most cases).

As an aside, I despise people taking courses solely because they think it'll be easy. Easy + interesting is one thing, but one of my biggest pet peeves is people taking courses only to boost their marks, or not taking a course because they think it will be hard. That's not the case with you, since you say you're also really not interested in it (and it's not just the difficulty that's a factor), this is just my opinion on bird courses in general--I don't think it should be a criterion at all for picking a course.

Didn't you know you would have to take it when you registered for the program? I'm sure you're not the only student who would rather not take AnalChem, but yet people do it because it is a required component of their program.

I've had many courses in my program that are not pre-reqs or necessary in any regard other than they are mandatory and that is that. I knew that coming in, and I chose to enter the program regardless because the advantages far outweighed the disadvantages.

This course is only 3 units. If this is the only 3 unit course you hate and do poorly in throughout your entire university career, consider yourself lucky.

Originally Posted by neila.b

Didn't you know you would have to take it when you registered for the program? I'm sure you're not the only student who would rather not take AnalChem, but yet people do it because it is a required component of their program.

Lol yeah I knew I'd have to take **** (didn't know how much I'd dislike/fail at it though!) but we were just using **** as an example--the OP hasn't said what course it is that he doesn't want to take.

Originally Posted by neila.b

I've had many courses in my program that are not pre-reqs or necessary in any regard other than they are mandatory and that is that. I knew that coming in, and I chose to enter the program regardless because the advantages far outweighed the disadvantages.

This course is only 3 units. If this is the only 3 unit course you hate and do poorly in throughout your entire university career, consider yourself lucky.

well said

Oh right. Well, I have a hunch the course in question actually IS AnalChem...a very strong hunch lol

Originally Posted by neila.b

Oh right. Well, I have a hunch the course in question actually IS AnalChem...a very strong hunch lol

LOL that would be interesting...
It's an *incredibly* useful course. If **** (ChemBio 2A03/2AA3) is the course in question, then there is absolutely no argument as to whether or not it's beneficial. I got a really bad mark in it, but I still learned sooooooooooooooo much (there's such a wide range of topics covered), my lab skills improved x100000000, and it was definitely worth the low mark for what I learned from it.
And if you're in 3rd year taking it (I would assume 3rd year biochem?) you have a ridiculous advantage over anyone taking it in 2nd year. Like, a RIDICULOUS advantage. It's not even remotely fair

And if the course isn't ****, then ignore this post! haha

Originally Posted by nerual

LOL that would be interesting...
It's an *incredibly* useful course. If **** (ChemBio 2A03/2AA3) is the course in question, then there is absolutely no argument as to whether or not it's beneficial. I got a really bad mark in it, but I still learned sooooooooooooooo much (there's such a wide range of topics covered), my lab skills improved x100000000, and it was definitely worth the low mark for what I learned from it.
And if you're in 3rd year taking it (I would assume 3rd year biochem?) you have a ridiculous advantage over anyone taking it in 2nd year. Like, a RIDICULOUS advantage. It's not even remotely fair

And if the course isn't ****, then ignore this post! haha

...You've clearly missed the point I was trying to make about these hypothetical situations. There is no sense in arguing with you if your going to dismiss my point by deeming it untrue... well duh. I was trying to convey a similar situation for you, and see how you would react in the same context but atlas this point has clearly eluded you.

Originally Posted by jordan19

...You've clearly missed the point I was trying to make about these hypothetical situations. There is no sense in arguing with you if your going to dismiss my point by deeming it untrue... well duh. I was trying to convey a similar situation for you, and see how you would react in the same context but atlas this point has clearly eluded you.

You didn't make the point properly though, because you only took into account the result (boring and nonbeneficial course) without considering why it was part of the program or the specific merits of the course. I haven't outright dismissed your point about the course being non-beneficial, I just have serious doubts that a course is part of your program and confers no benefits whatsoever. Since you won't say what the course (or program) is, that point can't really be debated further.

Also, the comment I made about **** chem was directed at neila.b...I don't know whether or not that's actually the course you're talking about.