[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by blankall

Not all science courses are created equal. I know at UVic, there were special biology "for psychology major" coursers. Also you are likely talking about the BSc psych route, which I would expect to be somewhere between a BA Psych degree and a more traditional science degree.

There is no such thing as "class X for student Y." This is such a tired urban legend. That's not how general requirements classes work. You have students from all disciplines enrolled in these general classes and you have only so many sections that can be offered. Spots in sections for those pursuing majors may be held, so those students are not held back from their guided pathway, but there is no special designation for other sections or classes. There are only so many faculty that can teach so many classes, so they are not putting together sections and course content - content that must meet accreditation requirements - that appeals to one class. Just like schools don't have Psychology for Biology students. Classes have to meet very specific educational outcomes and maintain rigor. If classes have wide variance like you suggested, the school wouldn't maintain its accreditation. University of Victoria has a very good reputation and I doubt they would do anything as stupid as you suggest.

You also obviously didn't read my whole post either, because I clearly identified it was BSc versus BSc, and then outlined the variance between the Psychology BA and the Psychology BSc for a final contrast. Between the BSc and the BA were six units difference, but the difference was made up in more higher division completion expectations of the BA.

I definitely do not agree that all faculties have the same marking average. For example, in Engineering, at least half the class had failed out after year two. There were specific thermodynamics course where the average was a fail, and even among students who continued into their 3rd year, it was most common to take the course 2-3 times before passing. Also, as I stated I actually did 2 years of econ courses. My marks were considerably better in those courses, and the class average was 5-10% higher than the bio courses I took.

Could it be that students in these faculties are just a lot dumber than you're giving them credit for? Having to take any class 2-3 times usually means the student does not have the aptitude for the content, not the content is too difficult or the faculty is grading extraordinarily hard. Faculty members in all disciplines grade using rubrics and student work is graded against that standard. Faculty are not allowed to randomly assign grades, or give students breaks, because they have to maintain rigor in their grading behaviors. Failure to do so results in academic challenges and law suits. Institutions have to enforce these behaviors so the school is not put at risk. The measurement of the student work against the rubric determines the grade, not some arbitrary system where the faculty get to play God.

Even in Biology, which wasn't nearly as hard as engineering, you'd see 1/3 of the students move onto easier degrees by the end of 1st year. Meanwhile, you'd see most humanities courses actually increase their numbers throughout the course of years 1-2.

See above about rubrics. I suspect its students who don't have the aptitude for comprehending the work that is the problem. This is something that exists in all faculties as well. Some people just suck at math (pick me! pick me!) while others suck at English. Some people will never comprehend engineering, while others just don't have the capacity to understand abnormal psychology. I've seen it in my classes. Someone from another faculty comes in and thinks they will have an easy go of it, because its an Intro class. They usually don't put the work in or just don't have the capacity to comprehend the subject matter, and either washout or scrape by with D. It's the people and their capacity, not the content.

I do agree that there are certainly some higher end BSc pysch degrees, which are very difficult to attain. However, there are also certain humanities courses where you can get through relatively easy with a C+/B- average and do a very small amount of work. The same isn't true of any hard science degree. This is of course a generality. Some specialized humanities programs will be more difficult than any general science degree.

As I have explained, the difference between the BSc and the BA is six introductory science courses. If you are smart, any intro course is cake, science or not. CAKE. Any 100/200 class is easy if you apply yourself. That's the problem though. Most students don't apply themselves. They think college/university is going to be just like high school where there is so much hand holding and coddling. Those that are prepared for independent study walk through their undergrad without a problem. Those who are expecting to have information fed to you are in for a world of hurt and always struggle. Again, it isn't the content, its the student. If you're ready, have interest, and apply yourself, you'll kick ass. Most students are not at that level, and there in lies the problem. Might be why "C/D" grades are in the discussion instead of straight "A's"?