[AnimeGamer31]

Overall Rating: The course was great because it is discussion based. There were 40 students and we would talk about things like why we do not have time to be sick to things like how patients drive health care. I loved the discussions because it really challenged and engaged me. I think the fact that many students would say they cannot afford to be sick really means something. It kinda disturbed me. We started off with health care in general and then went more in depth into naturopathy. I think the objective of this course is to spread awareness of what naturopathy is and also to learn more about our own health.

Professor Rating: Dr. Patel is amazing. She is effective at generating discussions. She remembers students' questions and she would bring them up again in the next 3 lectures. She is on top of things and is very organized. She is also so open minded; she loves seeing people mock naturopathy and she is a good sport about it: it really shows that she wants to help people understand more about naturopathy. She shares her stories with patients such as how her patients would claim they are healthy and have nothing wrong with them, but actually are taking a lot of medications. She also presented us a case of deciding on how to treat a patient. It was so hard to decide on a treatment. I learned that treatments are not always so straightforward and doctors actually have to know research well and I did not know they needed to do this. This course did shed more light on what doctors really go through. Dr. Patel is an instructor that is fair but will be critical because she wants to challenge people's thinking.

Interest: I was very interested in the topics covered. You can find the outline on the McMaster website: just google it. I definitely tried to apply things we learned in life and I did discuss these topics with friends and family.

Easiness: In terms of workload, it's easy. But, in terms of assignments and grading, it's much harder to say. We had 2 reflection papers and 1 presentation. Each paper was worth 30% and the presentation was worth 60%. The papers were so open ended: we just had to explore or reflect on anything that was discussed in class or maybe a question we had. We had to back this up with scholarly sources: this was difficult to do because science students were very used to being objective and just presenting information. The presentation was a lot of work and it required a lot of effort to be put in because it was worth so much.

Check out the topics, if they seem interesting, then I definitely recommend it. If you are taking this course because there is a low workload, I would suggest not taking this course because of two reasons: 1 is that this course is very hard to get into and I am sure there are many students that would actually love to learn what is being taught in this course and 2 is that the reflection papers require you to attend lectures to do well. I would not recommend taking this as a "bird course" if Dr. Patel is teaching it. I am not saying it is hard to do well, just saying that genuine effort is required and that is all.

Sorry, forgot to add on the ratings.

Dr.Patel is nice but I was essentially capped of at 80% on the dot throughout the whole course which pissed me off cause I put it lots of work.. i legit got 80% on every single paper and the presentation haha

as for the course it self.. well i dont know, the material was intriguing but I genuinely do not believe in homeopathic medicine, never have and never will. SO i had to BS hard about why I think homeopathic medicine is an alternative form of medicine.

Does anyone have an updated review?