Originally Posted by Mahratta

What math courses have you done proofs in? Did you take 2X or 2R, by any chance?

my university math career ended with 1aa3

i take astronomy+physics, though...but that's very different

I just like math @[email protected]

Originally Posted by Kendoon

my university math career ended with 1aa3

i take astronomy+physics, though...but that's very different

I just like math @[email protected]

Ah, I see. Well, if you like math, then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_s...teness_theorem

Now that is a proof to be reckoned with.

Originally Posted by sew12

Just goes to show what highly subjective and often arbitrary marking gets you.

Can't say its the faculty's or the professors faults or anything buts it not like they can magically make essays or projects easily quantifiable they way say Math might be but it just kinda sucks. Its painfully difficult to get a 12 in a lot of Humanities courses and forget a 12 average.

I notice this problem in Social Science as well, though it's not as bad as Humanities. It's funny, because people always say Humanities and Soc Sci are the easiest faculties - but they are obviously the hardest faculties to get high marks in. I wonder if TAs/profs subconciously mark harder to try to get rid of that "Humanities/Soc Sci is easy" stereotype.

It's probably because they're "easy" so they expect better...

Originally Posted by Kathy2

I notice this problem in Social Science as well, though it's not as bad as Humanities. It's funny, because people always say Humanities and Soc Sci are the easiest faculties - but they are obviously the hardest faculties to get high marks in. I wonder if TAs/profs subconciously mark harder to try to get rid of that "Humanities/Soc Sci is easy" stereotype.

Well, it probably has to do with the majority of courses in the humanities / social sciences being marked via a 'controllable' bellcurve, while the majority of science / eng courses are marked in an 'uncontrollable' distribution.

What I mean by that is that for an essay, a TA or prof scales the difficulty of their marking relative to the rest of the class, the previous marks, etc. while on a scantron sheet, the prof basically has to try and write an exam that will result in the distribution they want - if not, they shift the curve up (by decreasing the denominator or whatever).

So, it follows (somewhat) that your mark in most 1st & 2nd year science courses does not depend on how the class as a whole does - unless the class does poorly, in which case you benefit. On the other hand, in the humanities, your mark does depend on how the class does, and could be raised or lowered as a result (this approach is slightly problematic, since it would require some 'standard' removed from comparison - but let's assume one exists to simplify things)

Of course, this model doesn't really work for upper-year physics / mathematics courses which involve a greater diversity in potential reasoning methods.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Well, it probably has to do with the majority of courses in the humanities / social sciences being marked via a 'controllable' bellcurve, while the majority of science / eng courses are marked in an 'uncontrollable' distribution.

What I mean by that is that for an essay, a TA or prof scales the difficulty of their marking relative to the rest of the class, the previous marks, etc. while on a scantron sheet, the prof basically has to try and write an exam that will result in the distribution they want - if not, they shift the curve up (by decreasing the denominator or whatever).

So, it follows (somewhat) that your mark in most 1st & 2nd year science courses does not depend on how the class as a whole does - unless the class does poorly, in which case you benefit. On the other hand, in the humanities, your mark does depend on how the class does, and could be raised or lowered as a result (this approach is slightly problematic, since it would require some 'standard' removed from comparison - but let's assume one exists to simplify things)

I still think it's more to do with subjectivity though. I mean, it would be incredibly difficult to write a perfect argument without or with little counterpoints. It would also be very difficult to provide a perfect analysis of literature. And even if you do manage to get write one, you still have multiple essays.

But your argument still has a valid point. It's happened a couple times when the class does terrible and the prof adjusts the marks, but you can't do the same in essay based courses... can you?

Originally Posted by jhan523

I still think it's more to do with subjectivity though. I mean, it would be incredibly difficult to write a perfect argument without or with little counterpoints. It would also be very difficult to provide a perfect analysis of literature. And even if you do manage to get write one, you still have multiple essays.

But your argument still has a valid point. It's happened a couple times when the class does terrible and the prof adjusts the marks, but you can't do the same in essay based courses... can you?

Yeah, subjectivity is the basis for my point...because of the more subjective nature (and the style of assessment) of humanities courses, professors are given the flexibility to adjust the grade brackets on-the-fly. Science profs have to wait until after the test is written and the marking done before trying to fit the distribution to the one they wanted. In other words, science profs can have questions that are "too hard" or "too easy", and won't be able to do anything about it except raise the overall grades, while humanities profs / TAs do something similar, but do it 'actively', so to speak.

Again, this isn't universally true for science courses. On a take-home math final, for example, if the average was high, the prof would be able to tighten his criteria (perhaps look at brevity of the proof, elegance of the proof, etc.) into more "subjective" domains. In this sense, it parallels humanities courses - the conclusion may be perfect and the method acceptable, but that may not make for a great product overall.

It's the same story every year. Provost Honor is dominated by Health Scis and then a handful of people from other faculties (generally ones which don't require essay writing due to subjectivity that had been mentioned many times this thread) also get on the list.

Too bad the school doesn't actually reward the students with any scholarships for it.

I noticed that only ~5% (33 students) of Life Science I (enrollment of around ~825) received a Senate Scholarship (cutoff of 10.6); however, ~20% (31 students) in Health Science I (enrollment of 160) received a Senate Scholarship (with a ridiculous cutoff of 11.6)

Holy shit.. a fifth of their class has averages higher than an A; that's some kind of distribution right there.
Grade inflation ftw.

Originally Posted by Carbs

Holy shit.. a fifth of their class has averages higher than an A; that's some kind of distribution right there.
Grade inflation ftw.

Come now, that's not implied by the data. It's obvious that health scis are just much, much smarter than the rest of us. I mean, they got more than a 90% in grade 12!!!! A NINETY PERCENT!!!!

/sarcasm

I noticed that only ~5% (33 students) of Life Science I (enrollment of around ~825) received a Senate Scholarship (cutoff of 10.6)

Really? I would have expected a lot, lot more...

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Come now, that's not implied by the data. It's obvious that health scis are just much, much smarter than the rest of us. I mean, they got more than a 90% in grade 12!!!! A NINETY PERCENT!!!!

/sarcasm

This post is the truth.

Maybe like 1/50 health sci students are actually worth more than a dime...

Typical "the work I did in grade 12 was SUBSTANTIAL! I SHOULD BE GIVEN EVERYTHING NOW NO PROBLEM!" attitude.

Originally Posted by marcie

I am amazed by these people.

How they manage to do it... I will never know. Huge respect.

I don't have any respect, sorry to be awfully rude.

This world is disgusting, why is marks a measure of one's abilities and such? I have great marks don't get me wrong and I am definitely not jealous for that matter. But I really don't understand why McMaster honors these students? The issue of comparing student marks and recognizing people who have an average of 12 is revolting.

Yes recognizing people with an average above 9.5 to be in the dean's list is nice, but the thing with the 12 average is just disgusting.

These people could be nice and awesome, or could the rudest meanest son of a bit*h you have ever interacted with. I don't think you should respect them just because there average is high. So if Hitler had a sessional average of 12 you would respect him? You can argue and say, "Oh that's not what I meant" but having respect for people who get an average of 12 is very UNRESPECTING to others who did not achieve this average and could be clearly way better people. I actually respect people who go to school and try to develop a career and have to work to pay their school fees and what not. Or Someone with a disability yet achieves academically. These are actually people to be respected.

I am not saying a 12 average is not an achievement, its an academic excellency, but you can't respect that person merely because they achieved a 12 point average. That is revolting.

This is just my honest opinion and I was just offended by the word "respect" I am not trying to you know, offend you or pick on you. If you have respect for them good for you.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Come now, that's not implied by the data. It's obvious that health scis are just much, much smarter than the rest of us. I mean, they got more than a 90% in grade 12!!!! A NINETY PERCENT!!!!

/sarcasm

Agreed, I am in hate with the health science faculty ... BTW I actually got a 90+ average but denied to be involved with such an uptight, spiteful, horrible faculty. I hate health science students. I hate how they assume that we are stupid and don't understand anything. Specially during chemistry labs and such they act like they fu*king know everything and when you ask for help they explain it to you and try to show you how stupid you are! OMG I hate health sci

I think I said that many times

Originally Posted by noor_toglaw

I don't have any respect, sorry to be awfully rude.

This world is disgusting, why is marks a measure of one's abilities and such? I have great marks don't get me wrong and I am definitely not jealous for that matter. But I really don't understand why McMaster honors these students? The issue of comparing student marks and recognizing people who have an average of 12 is revolting.

Yes recognizing people with an average above 9.5 to be in the dean's list is nice, but the thing with the 12 average is just disgusting.

These people could be nice and awesome, or could the rudest meanest son of a bit*h you have ever interacted with. I don't think you should respect them just because there average is high. So if Hitler had a sessional average of 12 you would respect him? You can argue and say, "Oh that's not what I meant" but having respect for people who get an average of 12 is very UNRESPECTING to others who did not achieve this average and could be clearly way better people. I actually respect people who go to school and try to develop a career and have to work to pay their school fees and what not. These are actually people to be respected. Or Someone with great disability and achieves academically.

I am not saying a 12 average is not an achievement, its an academic excellency, but you can't respect that person merely because they achieved a 12 point average. That is revolting.

This is just my honest opinion and I was just offended by the word "respect" I am not trying to you know, offend you or pick on you. If you have respect for them good for you.

Godwin's law

Not trying to troll, I agree with you on some points (and not just in this post)