first of all, OP you're referring to essay courses correct?
because in economics (a social science) there are rarely any essays.

Yes, essays are subjective. Having to interpret material is harder than having to regurgitate facts or being given explicit instructions on how to solve a type of problem.

but then again, there are people who do well on essays and you ace writing courses easily.

Originally Posted by FireDragoonX

first of all, OP you're referring to essay courses correct?
because in economics (a social science) there are rarely any essays.

Yes, essays are subjective. Having to interpret material is harder than having to regurgitate facts or being given explicit instructions on how to solve a type of problem.

but then again, there are people who do well on essays and you ace writing courses easily.

True that; No wonder all of the SocSci people in the Provost's list have been Economics students as far as I recall.

I heard that Health Sciences is easy. Is this true? It apparently prepares its students for medical schools not only due to the classes that they are taking but also grade wise.

I find some classes unfair. In the sense that you deserve a certain mark but then they don't give you that mark because the class average is supposed to be like a B.

Originally Posted by Iamanonymous

I heard that Health Sciences is easy. Is this true? It apparently prepares its students for medical schools not only due to the classes that they are taking but also grade wise.

I find some classes unfair. In the sense that you deserve a certain mark but then they don't give you that mark because the class average is supposed to be like a B.

I've heard the same thing about Health Sciences. I don't know if it's true. I was told that pretty much everyone in Health Sciences does really well, no matter what. I'm not sure why this would be though.. Shouldn't doctors know their stuff?

Originally Posted by Kathy2

I've heard the same thing about Health Sciences. I don't know if it's true. I was told that pretty much everyone in Health Sciences does really well, no matter what. I'm not sure why this would be though.. Shouldn't doctors know their stuff?

ugh I didnt mean to start this again.
lol in b4 some bhsc student comes in and sets us all strait.

Originally Posted by andrew22

ugh I didnt mean to start this again.
lol in b4 some bhsc student comes in and sets us all strait.

Sorry, I'm not trying to start anything either. I was just curious because I've heard it a few times at school. I don't knowanyone in Health Science so I have no one to ask.

Originally Posted by Kathy2

Sorry, I'm not trying to start anything either. I was just curious because I've heard it a few times at school. I don't knowanyone in Health Science so I have no one to ask.

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.

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.

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

Well I have a random crackpot Sociological(Kind off) theory; BHSC students I have heard are known to take courses that aren't your run of the mill dry, knuckles down struggles. They require creative/out of the box thinking, working in a group or doing something you like. There is a guy in healthsci who is writing a thesis on Plays or Art or something :S They have infinite freedom.

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.

A lifeSci kid on the other hand is according to darwinism not as gifted(If you call the Canadian High School system a legit test) or wasn't able to develop the same time management skills, isn't gifted with natural flair/talent in something(eg essay writing or critical thinking) or doesn't have the same work ethic they did. Hence they are taught theory from bottom up and grind it through four years to Instill into their heads loads of content. A number of them manage to learn the skills to be equivalently capable of applying to Med School or the university is able to instill into them a passion for research and creative thinking.

Because if you look at the real world there are 9 people who do the hard work then there is the one who does the fun stuff and makes the descions at the top.

In other words its classic Quality vs Quantity. Another Analogy would be Health Scis being a less dysfunctional version of House while the Life Sci's are House's team, who while smart and capable don't have that extra edge, hence they do all the grunt work and tests while house usually doesn't get his hands dirty. A somewhat inaccurate analogy but that's the best I can think of right now.

p.s: I hope Life Scis' don't take offense! Sociological theories are usually hit and miss, but hey! 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.

that sounds like bullshit huzaifa, firedragoonx and I know whats up. that is less rational. Mac wants good stats, mac doesnt want anything more than good stats.

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...

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...

LOLOLOL

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.

ME4P2 CLASS NOTES 2005-2006

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.

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.