^ It's probably more difficult to ace a social science / humanities course (from my experience, science courses are really easy if you know your stuff, while humanities courses don't always follow the same principle, except for Linguistics 1A03 )

Originally Posted by huzaifa47

At least its a bit more rational then they are just graded easier/their courses are easier because of some random reason by the Administration.

Not really.

BHSc is Mac's 'flagship' undergrad program. They don't want the current students to complain too much. They couldn't care less if Life Scis complain, since Life Sci isn't their pioneer PBL program, while Health sci is.

In addition, there's not been particularly much correlation between high school marks and university marks when the high school marks are in an "honours" level - high school was, after all, just problem-type memorization.

Huzaifa said:
"
However they can be allowed that because health Sci kids either a) Are Gifted enough to enter Mac with 90+ b) or more likely have a good work ethic and ability to study for long periods of time or a combo of both c) Come here with a good volunteer background or unique experiences/skills that aided their supplementary.

Hence that ability or gift is not something you lose overnight, it is only enhanced by the creative courses they go through. Though obviously they do learn Health Sci theory as well to augment their skills. "

I don't really agree with your theory because you assume everyone in Life Science only went there because they didn't get into Health Science.

By the end of first semester, I was about 6% above the cutoff for Health Science and I have a feeling my supplementary application would have been solid too, but I still didn't even bother applying.

What does that make me? A 'grunt', destined to not be as successful as any health science student? Not to mention, it's not very difficult to get well above a 90 average (especially in grade 12); doing that while juggling many extracurriculars is more difficult, yes, but that's not to say that Health Science students have done more extracurriculars than anyone else applying to any other type of program.

That being said, your analogy assumes that it was hard work and intelligence that allowed each health science student to get in, which doesn't really say much considering it's not terribly hard to get in anyway.

Originally Posted by hellohello

A lot of us in first year are doing badly in our Cell Bio class. But the upper years keep assuring us that it will "work out". I wish I knew what this meant...

Did you read my post above?

it means they inflate grades and you shouldn't worry too much about your health sci courses. spend more time on your non-health sci courses.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Huzaifa said:
"
However they can be allowed that because health Sci kids either a) Are Gifted enough to enter Mac with 90+ b) or more likely have a good work ethic and ability to study for long periods of time or a combo of both c) Come here with a good volunteer background or unique experiences/skills that aided their supplementary.

Hence that ability or gift is not something you lose overnight, it is only enhanced by the creative courses they go through. Though obviously they do learn Health Sci theory as well to augment their skills. "

I don't really agree with your theory because you assume everyone in Life Science only went there because they didn't get into Health Science.

By the end of first semester, I was about 6% above the cutoff for Health Science and I have a feeling my supplementary application would have been solid too, but I still didn't even bother applying.

What does that make me? A 'grunt', destined to not be as successful as any health science student? Not to mention, it's not very difficult to get well above a 90 average (especially in grade 12); doing that while juggling many extracurriculars is more difficult, yes, but that's not to say that Health Science students have done more extracurriculars than anyone else applying to any other type of program.

That being said, your analogy assumes that it was hard work and intelligence that allowed each health science student to get in, which doesn't really say much considering it's not terribly hard to get in anyway.

Obviously there is a flaw with rough sociological generalizations: a # of Exceptions. As I said its a pretty rough/inaccurate analogy as I admitted earlier on. Plus secondly the big flaw in my argument: I never went to high school in Canada, Where I come from 90% was a big thing and to get an A you needed that extra all spark, working hard and even memorizing everything wasn't enough :(

Originally Posted by feonateresa

I've taken both social science and humanities courses, and received a 10+ in almost all of them. That said, I've also taken biology and psychology (is this science or social science) and am currently receiving A's on assignments/tests.

I don't think that the science courses are any harder - they're actually a bit easier because of the fact that there is only 'right' and 'wrong'. It's not upto the interpretation of the TA whether or not humans have 46 chromosomes (and if any TA does that, they're just a dumbshit).

I have friends from engineering and science who take social sciences courses and fail, for what reason I'm not sure... but if engineering/science courses are harder, shouldn't those students have an easier time in social science courses?

It's just weird that everyone says how ridiculous easy social science/humanities is (therefore giving it a bad rep), and now everyone's like, ohh it's so hard to get an A. I'm confused haha. I think everyone should keep in mind that it REALLY depends on the student, their work ethic, how much they enjoy the subject, etc.

I'm going to make some sweeping generalizations in this post - please don't get offended. Haha.

I find that a lot of Science/Engineering/Math, etc. students say that Social Science/Humanities classes are "easy" and that students in these programs are "dumb". But it depends on each individual student.

My boyfriend is in Engineering and he gets all 11's and 12's. He is so damn smart. But if he were to take any Social Science class, he would fail miserably. This is because he is a terrible writer. It's the same way with me. I can get 10's and 11's in my Social Science classes, but I would fail in Engineering because I'm bad at math and science.

Do you get what I'm saying? A lot of people are willing to say "Social Science/Humanities is easy!" when they aren't actually in Social Science and Humanities. But in reality, they would probably fail if they took any of those courses. They seem to think a class lacking in math equations and science questions is easy, but that's not necessarily true.

(Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's lots of Engineers and science students who could do well in history and political science. But more likely than not, I'd bet they would do poorly or fail)

Originally Posted by andrew22

responding to kathy
high grades = high % of grads from this program make it to med school. probably doesn't hurt rankings/stats

I get that, and it makes sense for McMaster.
But maybe it's just me -- I like my doctors to know their shit when I'm in the hospital.

I get that they have years of medical school to learn all that, but I don't think it's right to basically give people a free pass through university. There's a lot of things they might learn here that they might not learn in med school.

Originally Posted by Kathy2

But maybe it's just me -- I like my doctors to know their shit when I'm in the hospital.

So don't go to a doctor who got their BHSc, then.

I'm joking. Really.

Originally Posted by ViktorVaughn

ME4P2 CLASS NOTES 2005-2006

If you believe that there is only "right and wrong" in engineering or science, you very likely have not taken courses in either. This idea may apply to a few introductory courses, but not much beyond that.
Many solutions contain a great number of steps, many of which can be approached in different ways. These different steps are marked independently from one another, and require a subjective assessment on the part of the person evaluating the work. If answers were right or wrong, people would never contact professors or TAs for reassessment. If there was only right or wrong, engineering exams would be multiple choice (I as an engineering student haven’t had a multiple choice exam in 3 years). Finally if there was only right or wrong, engineering professors would not constantly make the point that the final answer to a question is the least important part, it is your analysis that earns you the most reward (and rarely is your analysis right or wrong, but rather somewhere in the middle) I've submitted several exams with pages full of writing explaining my thought process, without an actual tangible answer, and have received plenty of marks.

Laboratory exercises are another counterexample. Explain how questions such as the below fit your description of science or engineering courses.

"Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each jogging mode. Which jogging modes did you find most and least intuitive to use, and why?"

You're also say:

" if engineering/science courses are harder, shouldn't those students have an easier time in social science courses? "

People do well in certain types of courses and not others because of their aptitudes and interests. If you were to take an average student in any technical program and have them write essays, or take someone who's evaluation consists primarily of essay writing and put them in a technical course, odds are both students would perform at a lower level because they are out of their element.
I think a lot of people fail to achieve in humanities and social science courses that involve essay writing because they fail to understand what they are being evaluated on. A lot of people are under the impression that it is what you write about, but that is hardly the case. You are evaluated on how you write it. It is the mechanics of your writing or argument, and not so much its content that lead to good or poor performance in such courses. Having an excellent point in a philosophical argument or a great story in a creative writing course does not mean you will do well. Writing utilizing the form and methodology you are taught will. People argue that there is a large amount of subjectivity in the assessment of such things. I beg to differ; the subjective aspects are not what you are being evaluated on at all. This misunderstanding is the source of a lot of difficulty.

I have taken 3 or 4 "soft" courses in my time in University, and have found them fairly straight forward by simply understanding the above. I have also done fairly well (B+, A-, A-, A) despite my enormous hatred for writing essays.
Its difficult to do well in anything if you don’t know how to approach it.

Of course essays are graded on how they are written, but by subjectivity, we mean through the view of the TA him/herself and how they mark essays. Take my political science last year, one tutorial had an abundance of A-grade essays, while the other had mostly B's and C's. It could be that yes, the students in one tutorial did better than the other, but it could also be that the TA's mark much differently. Some TA's are much much more lenient than others, and don't always look for the same things. Like mentioned earlier in the thread, someone showed their essay to two different people (I think it was a TA, and later a professor) and they got completely different grades.

Most of the assignments/tests that make up engineering/sciences courses are right and wrong, and yes like you said, some of it isn't. But the majority, if not all, of a social science course is completely up to interpretation of the TA/professor. Essays for assignments, and essays on exams. It's not the same for EVERY course obviously, but the typical courses that you'd find in each faculty.

When I said, "If engineering/sciences courses are harder, shouldn't the students have an easier time in social science/humanities courses" - I was referring to the attitude that these students have towards social sciences. They're always saying how it's really easy, it's all bird courses, and people who think engineering is difficult drop out and enroll in social sciences, like a step down. I don't want to generalize, but that's usually how it comes across when these topics are brought up.

Like I said, it really does depend on the student and their own work ethic and interests. There are students who do well in all sorts of courses.

It is not impossible; impossible is nothing. That said, is it improbable? Yeah. Usually, unless you go way above and beyond the call of duty, you max out at 10, possibly 11. Interestingly, in the US there isn't such a glass ceiling on humanities/liberal arts grades as there is here.

Originally Posted by Goce

It is not impossible; impossible is nothing. That said, is it improbable? Yeah. Usually, unless you go way above and beyond the call of duty, you max out at 10, possibly 11. Interestingly, in the US there isn't such a glass ceiling on humanities/liberal arts grades as there is here.

That's because in the US they're graded on a curve. Some students have to get high marks due to the nature of the system.

Originally Posted by FireDragoonX

Did you read my post above?

it means they inflate grades and you shouldn't worry too much about your health sci courses. spend more time on your non-health sci courses.

I have comfortable 90s in my non-health sci courses... but not in my health sci courses. The health sci courses are hard in that they take up so freaking much of your time, and they don't communicate their expectations.

So I guess my point is... it's not so much inflation as it is getting your mark to be where it should be in relation to your other classes? I don't know. I'll have a better idea in a few days when I find out how I'm doing in all of my classes....

Originally Posted by FireDragoonX

mcmaster is a business. they try to get students.
so they have this bhsc program. it attracts people from all over.

if it's a hard program, or if they give students low marks, then the current students start whining about it being difficult, then who's going to want to go into the program?

so they inflate grades, keeps students happy, keeps mac happy.

Well it is a bit odd that they inflate marks for health sciences but not for other programs.

I say, health sciences=fast track to med school

Originally Posted by Iamanonymous

Well it is a bit odd that they inflate marks for health sciences but not for other programs.

I say, health sciences=fast track to med school

But health sci classes are harder, content wise and mark wise. That's why the marks are "inflated".

Originally Posted by feonateresa

I've taken both social science and humanities courses, and received a 10+ in almost all of them. That said, I've also taken biology and psychology (is this science or social science) and am currently receiving A's on assignments/tests.

It's just weird that everyone says how ridiculous easy social science/humanities is (therefore giving it a bad rep), and now everyone's like, ohh it's so hard to get an A. I'm confused haha. I think everyone should keep in mind that it REALLY depends on the student, their work ethic, how much they enjoy the subject, etc.

It also depends on a person's luck because social science/humanities are subjective. There is apparently no right or wrong answer. This being said, the Prof. and TA's always remind you this but then they mark your damn paper like there is a specific answer that they are looking for. And so in the end, if you are lucky to have a kind marker, then you will get a good mark. If not, then you would be pissed and think it is super unfair.

Originally Posted by Iamanonymous

It also depends on a person's luck because social science/humanities are subjective. There is apparently no right or wrong answer. This being said, the Prof. and TA's always remind you this but then they mark your dam paper like there is a specific answer that they are looking for. And so in the end, if you are luck to have a kind marker, then you will get a good mark. If not, then you would be pissed and think it is super unfair.

Don't discount things like quality of writing, clarity of thoughts, structure and organization all count too. Yes, there is a lot of subjectivity in writing essays, but if you don't have quality writing skills, don't expect even an easy marker to give you a good grade.