oh great your one of the people who contribute to the crap. :/

I'm in engineering, and I don't look down at life-sci. Where did you get the idea that people don't like life-sci?

I like life-sci chicks, they are foxy, and they are numerous.

In the end, you'll just graduate with a BSc +/- (Honours), which alone doesn't translate to much. The courses are essentially the same and you'll end up forgetting > 70% of what you've learned in the future.

If I remember correctly, very very few life scis I know get into med school (In fact, the chances of any biology related degrees getting into med school is relatively low at MAC)

A lot of people who go into life sciences don't want to go into medicine as it is a broader program with varying interests. Also, clearly you've been talking to the wrong people ... if you meet the cut-offs and don't suck at your interviews it's not that difficult to get in.

Originally Posted by Lois

In the end, you'll just graduate with a BSc +/- (Honours), which alone doesn't translate to much. The courses are essentially the same and you'll end up forgetting > 70% of what you've learned in the future.



A lot of people who go into life sciences don't want to go into medicine as it is a broader program with varying interests. Also, clearly you've been talking to the wrong people ... if you meet the cut-offs and don't suck at your interviews it's not that difficult to get in.
[/color]

I am pretty sure a majority of life science students want to get into medicine. Broader program with varying interests? what does it mean varying interest? You learn life sciences which leads to medicine, research, health care fields and trust me, most of them would pick medicine as their primary interest.
I cannot believe you just said med school is not that difficult to get in? Clearly, you don't understand how hard we work to achieve admission into medical school. In order to get in, you need exceptional ECs, MCATs and grades. Meeting the cutoff does NOT even guarantee you an interview. Btw, have you talked to the right people, because clearly, you know a lot of people in medical school from life science programs.
I think life sciences program is a great program, it is just that you need to understand that the majority of life science students are interested in medicine and medicine is definitely not easy to get into

Originally Posted by gggggg

I am pretty sure a majority of life science students want to get into medicine. Broader program with varying interests? what does it mean varying interest? You learn life sciences which leads to medicine, research, health care fields and trust me, most of them would pick medicine as their primary interest.
I cannot believe you just said med school is not that difficult to get in? Clearly, you don't understand how hard we work to achieve admission into medical school. In order to get in, you need exceptional ECs, MCATs and grades. Meeting the cutoff does NOT even guarantee you an interview. Btw, have you talked to the right people, because clearly, you know a lot of people in medical school from life science programs.
I think life sciences program is a great program, it is just that you need to understand that the majority of life science students are interested in medicine and medicine is definitely not easy to get into

Life sci encompasses many areas: ecology, pharmacology, chemistry, etc. Some people want to go into biodiversity conservation, others want to work for industry, there are also people who enjoy research. There are also individuals that like to go into law, teaching, other health care fields: nursing, SL/P, audiology, NPs, PAs, etc. Not everyone in life sci wants to go to medical school.

Considering which program I'm in, I definitely know more than you about how difficult it is to get in. At U of T if you meet the cut offs you're granted an interview, 1/2 of the interviewed applicants get in and that doesn't account for waitlist movement. The same applies to Western where 1/3 interviewees get in.

I am in life sci and I had times where I did not feel that pride beaming through my chest when I tell someone I am in life sci. To be honest, I do not know why this was the case. Maybe it was because most of my courses weren't very difficult and most were not hard to get double digits. But I think the notion of others looking down on it really comes from yourself. But over time, I actually appreciated my program. I did get enough time to volunteer and meet people and I got to try out different courses. I took astronomy courses and I took psychology courses. I had Dr. Day and I had Dr. Childs. Life Sci is quite amazing that it lets you do what you want.

I don't know if others look down on life sciences. I am grateful for taking the course life sci 2a03 for this situation because I can tell you that the course taught me one thing and it's that you can never accept a hypothesis. You can only reject it and fail to reject it. So the notion of life scis being looked down...well I don't know if it's true until I have enough evidence to support it. Perhaps the only evidence came from your own perspective because you do not value it and would perhaps look down on others in this program and you project this onto others.

All of this is speculation because how can you prove how people feel about a program given the student population?

Originally Posted by Lois

Life sci encompasses many areas: ecology, pharmacology, chemistry, etc. Some people want to go into biodiversity conservation, others want to work for industry, there are also people who enjoy research. There are also individuals that like to go into law, teaching, other health care fields: nursing, SL/P, audiology, NPs, PAs, etc. Not everyone in life sci wants to go to medical school.

Considering which program I'm in, I definitely know more than you about how difficult it is to get in. At U of T if you meet the cut offs you're granted an interview, 1/2 of the interviewed applicants get in and that doesn't account for waitlist movement. The same applies to Western where 1/3 interviewees get in.

"Meeting the cut-off" entails a lot more than you make it out to be. U of T has one of the highest GPA requirements (historically around a 3.9, or 11, GPA), requires a breadth of life experiences (emphasizes research experience) and asks that applicants write four personal essays. Nobody knows how these are graded, and often people with very high GPAs and MCATs do not get interviews. So yes, if you "meet the cut-off" you'll get an interview, but meeting the cut-off is not easy and can be unpredictable.

From 3052 applicants, 576 received interviews. (http://www.md.utoronto.ca/admissions/statistics.htm)

From 3052 applicants, 576 received interviews.

And out of the applicants, a majority of which did not meet the appropriate standards ("Oh hey, my MCAT scores are terrible but I'm going to apply anyways!!! or they have terrible essays). Despite this, there are 250 seats at U of T and ~ 500 interviewees. 250/500 = 1/2.

Once you go through the process, you'll note that you see the same people at a majority of your interviews meaning that there will be > 250 offers of admission due to waitlist movement.

Originally Posted by Lois

And out of the applicants, a majority of which did not meet the appropriate standards ("Oh hey, my MCAT scores are terrible but I'm going to apply anyways!!! or they have terrible essays). Despite this, there are 250 seats at U of T and ~ 500 interviewees. 250/500 = 1/2.

Once you go through the process, you'll note that you see the same people at a majority of your interviews meaning that there will be > 250 offers of admission due to waitlist movement.

The "majority" of them did not meet the appropriate standards but applied anyway? I'd be very interested in seeing a source for this. Guess work isn't really appropriate.

Originally Posted by Chipmunk

The "majority" of them did not meet the appropriate standards but applied anyway? I'd be very interested in seeing a source for this. Guess work isn't really appropriate.

Go look at the premed101 forums and you'll see the "Oh, I have a X in VR should I still bother applying??" The typical response is "In past years the cut off has been X, but who knows this year may change". Some people have more money than they do commonsense.

But I digress, this was all in response to ggg or whoever who said that few life sci/biology students get in. A majority of my friends who applied from those respective programs got in. Regardless, whatever program you're in really doesn't matter as long as you have the appropriate requirements, get an interview and perform well.

Originally Posted by AnimeGamer31

I am in life sci and I had times where I did not feel that pride beaming through my chest when I tell someone I am in life sci. To be honest, I do not know why this was the case. Maybe it was because most of my courses weren't very difficult and most were not hard to get double digits. But I think the notion of others looking down on it really comes from yourself. But over time, I actually appreciated my program. I did get enough time to volunteer and meet people and I got to try out different courses. I took astronomy courses and I took psychology courses. I had Dr. Day and I had Dr. Childs. Life Sci is quite amazing that it lets you do what you want.

I don't know if others look down on life sciences. I am grateful for taking the course life sci 2a03 for this situation because I can tell you that the course taught me one thing and it's that you can never accept a hypothesis. You can only reject it and fail to reject it. So the notion of life scis being looked down...well I don't know if it's true until I have enough evidence to support it. Perhaps the only evidence came from your own perspective because you do not value it and would perhaps look down on others in this program and you project this onto others.

All of this is speculation because how can you prove how people feel about a program given the student population?

After reading all the comments here I was thinking exactly what you said, that maybe I am projecting my own feelings on to others. But I said this because I have heard students say some things that made me feel this way, but I guess I did over-generalize. Anyways, I am happy to read all the positive comments here

Originally Posted by Lois

Life sci encompasses many areas: ecology, pharmacology, chemistry, etc. Some people want to go into biodiversity conservation, others want to work for industry, there are also people who enjoy research. There are also individuals that like to go into law, teaching, other health care fields: nursing, SL/P, audiology, NPs, PAs, etc. Not everyone in life sci wants to go to medical school.

Considering which program I'm in, I definitely know more than you about how difficult it is to get in. At U of T if you meet the cut offs you're granted an interview, 1/2 of the interviewed applicants get in and that doesn't account for waitlist movement. The same applies to Western where 1/3 interviewees get in.

As an upcoming med school applicant. I am pretty sure U of T does not have a GPA cutoff for guaranteed interview. How you even got this information is beyond me. the "minimum" GPA to be considered is 3.6 while the average accepted applicant has around 3.9 GPA. No where it implies or says that U of T use a cutoff system for a guaranteed interview. Queen's used to have a cutoff system, but they don't now. Western is the only school that has a cutoff system and trust me, they still take ECs into very heavy consideration despite amazing interviews.

Originally Posted by starfish

This implies that even people who are IN the programs think that they're easier.

Well yes, easier in the sense that you have a lot more freedom to choose courses that you are interested in taking. Genuine interest in a course or topic makes it easier because you are more willing to learn/study the material as opposed to a course that you are forced to take.

Originally Posted by gggggg

As an upcoming med school applicant. I am pretty sure U of T does not have a GPA cutoff for guaranteed interview. How you even got this information is beyond me. the "minimum" GPA to be considered is 3.6 while the average accepted applicant has around 3.9 GPA. No where it implies or says that U of T use a cutoff system for a guaranteed interview. Queen's used to have a cutoff system, but they don't now. Western is the only school that has a cutoff system and trust me, they still take ECs into very heavy consideration despite amazing interviews.

How you took "cutoffs" and "requirements" to = "GPA cutoff for guaranteed interview" is beyond me.

Most schools narrow down the number of interviews by altering the GPA/MCAT threshold to get a certain number of applicants. Then they'll add or subtract depending on essays/extra-curriculars/LORs.

If you have a GPA at/above historical cutoffs >3.75*, MCAT at/above historical cut offs (10-10-11VR - R)* and you're sufficiently "well rounded" then chances are very likely that you'll get an interview or multiple.

Western's interviews are closed-file. I've heard stories of people going on and on and on about their ECs without answering the question presented to them. The interviewers were not impressed. I trust the people that have successfully completed the process and actually interviewed candidates over an upcoming medical school applicant, thanks.

*Change these values to whatever the going cut-offs are

Originally Posted by Chipmunk

"Meeting the cut-off" entails a lot more than you make it out to be. U of T has one of the highest GPA requirements (historically around a 3.9, or 11, GPA), requires a breadth of life experiences (emphasizes research experience) and asks that applicants write four personal essays. Nobody knows how these are graded, and often people with very high GPAs and MCATs do not get interviews. So yes, if you "meet the cut-off" you'll get an interview, but meeting the cut-off is not easy and can be unpredictable.

From 3052 applicants, 576 received interviews. (http://www.md.utoronto.ca/admissions/statistics.htm)

Med school be crazy. But yea UT grad school is high up there