Canada's University System

[#-3]

I used to work with a guy who's resume said BA in Science on it, I always got a chuckle out of that. He was Mexican, and the degree was said to have been earned in Mexico, so I always assumed he was a rich kid who's dad could afford a degree mill. He was a smart enough guy, but I also didn't think he had the work ethic or discipline be successful at any one thing for 4 straight years.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by blankall

Econ is definitely not a hard science degree. As someone with a biology degree, I'm equally irked about the watering down of the BSc.

I don't think there's anything lesser with an arts degree, but it is a different style of training and education. A lot of people associate all arts degrees with the plethora of students graduating with psych/sociology/antro/etc.... Degrees. These degrees can be valuable too, but are generally much easier to again and where students who fail out of other degrees end up. They have a bit of a bad stigma, which I think could be corrected if universities began limiting enrollment in these subjects. Once again I'd like to see more centralized control from the government here. Particularly if the government is going to continue subsidizing these courses so heavily.

Interesting take. What makes the "hard" sciences more difficult form the "soft" sciences? I can understand the ones with math involvement, like organic chem, but biology? What makes it so difficult? What makes psych, sociology, and anthropology so easy? I mean, the real work in any of the sciences doesn't take place at the undergrad level, so what makes you believe your bio degree is better than a anthropology degree? You're both qualified to understand animal husbandry, just in different terms.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by #-3

I used to work with a guy who's resume said BA in Science on it, I always got a chuckle out of that. He was Mexican, and the degree was said to have been earned in Mexico, so I always assumed he was a rich kid who's dad could afford a degree mill. He was a smart enough guy, but I also didn't think he had the work ethic or discipline be successful at any one thing for 4 straight years.

Are you besmirching my esteemed PhD?



Issued by the respected and first-rate University of the Batavian Republic!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blankall

Econ is definitely not a hard science degree. As someone with a biology degree, I'm equally irked about the watering down of the BSc.

The math side of an Econ degree can go into some very similar places to other hard sciences if you are doing the theoretical side. You can also have an Econ degree almost devoid of math beyond the basic stats / first year calc / Linear alg.

It’s a degree that sits in both BA and BSc depending on specialization.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

The math side of an Econ degree can go into some very similar places to other hard sciences if you are doing the theoretical side. You can also have an Econ degree almost devoid of math beyond the basic stats / first year calc / Linear alg.

It’s a degree that sits in both BA and BSc depending on specialization.

I took natural resource economics as an elective in 3rd year.

On the first day, the prof said that calc 1 was on the pre-requisite list for a reason, and that being able to take a derivative would be required. He also said all the numerical problems could be solved graphically. This ended up being true - by "take a derivative", what he meant was "find the slope of a line given two points."

After this explanation, multiple people got up and left in the middle of the first class.

I do agree that econ CAN have math requirements equivalent to the hard sciences.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Interesting take. What makes the "hard" sciences more difficult form the "soft" sciences? I can understand the ones with math involvement, like organic chem, but biology? What makes it so difficult? What makes psych, sociology, and anthropology so easy? I mean, the real work in any of the sciences doesn't take place at the undergrad level, so what makes you believe your bio degree is better than a anthropology degree? You're both qualified to understand animal husbandry, just in different terms.

It's not just an issue of difficulty, although standards in most science classes are higher. Must science classes, at least in the late 90s when I was in school, had a b-/c+ average, but most social science courses had a b/b+ average.

It's more an issue of approach. In biology I had to take 3 "lab" courses, where you physically had to learn lab skills. The lab courses where an extra 3 hours of class per week each, plus weekly assignments, so a lot more work than humanities courses.

I also did an unofficial minor in economics (they didn't offer it, but I took econ courses as electives). So I have nothing against economics, and actually kind of regret not majoring in econ. It's definitely not a science though.

Biology also has a lot of math involvement. Statistics and calculus are a major part of biology. To get a degree in biology you also need to take physics, chemistry, and math for your first two years. All of the strict science programs are almost the same for the first two years, as you build fundamentals. Then you specify in a specific field once you've got a better understanding of basic scientific principles, theory, and practice.

It's also debatable whether math is a science, as it has no inherent natural component. The basic definition of science involves real life experiments and the testing of theories. Math is all theories.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's not just an issue of difficulty, although standards in most science classes are higher. Must science classes, at least in the late 90s when I was in school, had a b-/c+ average, but most social science courses had a b/b+ average.

Okay, that's some elitism talking. Every faculty holds their students to the same expectation. It's mandated through the accrediting body, and maintained with pride by most instructors. You are going to have some instructors who grade easier than others, but those exist in all faculties and are not restricted to one faculty. Grade average is also not a good measure as you may have a bunch of boneheads in a school that drag the average down or a bunch of really good students who low the curve.

It's more an issue of approach. In biology I had to take 3 "lab" courses, where you physically had to learn lab skills. The lab courses where an extra 3 hours of class per week each, plus weekly assignments, so a lot more work than humanities courses.

Not a lot more work, just different work. Classes are normally designed to have a theoretical component and then an application component. The lab is your application component. In other majors, like the humanities, your application component is usually defined in some type of activity, like a formal presentation or a scholarly research paper, which is just as much work as lab time. You're not stuck in a lab doing work, but you're doing research and writing a 20 page paper on a given subject, which means you're stuck at your desk reviewing journal articles and papers. Different work, but just as demanding.

I also did an unofficial minor in economics (they didn't offer it, but I took econ courses as electives). So I have nothing against economics, and actually kind of regret not majoring in econ. It's definitely not a science though.

Yeah, I can see that. Econ is a much more useful degree than biology, from just strictly the job possibilities. There is a little bit of irony here when you consider that Economics is actually classified under the Faculty of Arts at UofC, and the idea presented that the Faculty of Arts being soft or easy.

Also, what is an unofficial minor? This made me giggle a bit. You either have one or you don't. It's like being unofficially pregnant. You have to declare and then you have to complete the requirements for the minor, which is usually 30 credits or more in a field of study, and 2/3rds of those credits being above introductory level (100/200 level). Usually this would require extra course work as you are doing significant work outside your science guided pathway, but I do see the BSc in Biological Sciences does give you opportunity to exploit 30 credits in Economics (Faculty of Art) without extra coursework (9 classes in Econ at the 300 level to meet all requirements) if you complete all breadth and non-major field requirements together. Crazy that if you were going down the road to not declare a minor.

Biology also has a lot of math involvement. Statistics and calculus are a major part of biology. To get a degree in biology you also need to take physics, chemistry, and math for your first two years. All of the strict science programs are almost the same for the first two years, as you build fundamentals. Then you specify in a specific field once you've got a better understanding of basic scientific principles, theory, and practice.

Again, this is all perception. A BSc in biology has no more math than a BSc in Psychology. In fact, many of the class requirements for the degree are very similar for requisites in the science requirements. More on this later.

It's also debatable whether math is a science, as it has no inherent natural component. The basic definition of science involves real life experiments and the testing of theories. Math is all theories.

I can see someone making this argument, but I wouldn't. Math is the foundation of science and the language that allows scientists to communicate about their specific fields of study. Math is used to make clear definitions, comparisons, and validation of research. I'm not a math guy myself, and struggle with some of the advanced maths, but it is important to have that foundation and ability to present information. The complexity of the field of study and the importance is brings to every aspect of sciences - hard or soft - makes it a core foundation, and very much a field of study all unto itself and definitely meets the defection of a science. That's why is part of the Faculty of Science at almost all institutions.

You raised a point that made me want to show an example of degree requirements and why this argument of hard/soft science and BSc/BA is more smoke and mirrors than it is reality. Let's contrast this "tough" biology BSc with that "easy" BSc in psychology. All reqs from the University of Calgary.

Biology Requirements (*pre-reqs being completion of high school course work)

18 units of Biology - 241 (Intro to Energy Flow*), 243 (Intro to DNA, Inheritance, Evolution*), 311 (Principles of Genetics), 331 (Intro to Cellular and Molecular Bio)), 371 (Comparative Bio between Plants and Animals)

6 units of Chemistry - 201 (General/Intro Chem: Structure and Bonding*) or 211 (General/Intro Chem: Structure and Bonding*), 203 (General/Intro Chem: Change and Equilibrium*) or 213 (General/Intro Chem: Change and Equilibrium*) - The contrast between the 0X and 1X classes being a concentration on critical thinking, meaning 0X are remedial classes.

6 units - One of Mathematics 249 (Introduction to calculus*)or 265 (University Calculus I) or 275 (Calculus for Engineers and Scientists) and one of Mathematics 211 (Linear Methods I*) or 213 (Linear Algebra I*) or 267 (University Calculus II) or 277 (Multivariable Calculus) or Statistics 327 (Statistics for Physical and Environmental Science)

6 units - Computer Science 217 (Introduction of Computer Science [structured programming]*) or Data Science 211 (Programming with data - basic programming), and Computer Science 219 (Introduction of Computer Science [object oriented programming]); or Computer Science 231 (Introduction of Computer Science [structured programming]) and 233 (Introduction of Computer Science [object oriented programming]); or Geology 201 (Principles of Geoscience*) and 202 (Application of Geoscience); or Physics 211 (introduction to Mechanics*), or 221 (Introduction to Mechanics*), and 223 (Introduction to Electromagnetism and Thermal)

3 units - Biochemistry 393 (Introduction to Biochemistry)

3 units - Chemistry 351 (Organic Chem I)

3 units - Chemistry 353 (Organic Chem II) or option

15 units - From the Field of Biological Sciences

12 units - From the Field of Biological Sciences at the 400 level or higher

18 units - Breadth Requirement: Options from faculties other than the Faculty of Science, excluding courses in Table I. Of these, at least 6 units must be from the Faculty of Arts. Science 311 may be counted among the courses from other faculties.

15 units - Non-Major Field Requirement: Options that are not in the Field of Biological Sciences

15 units - Options

Psychology Requirements (** math or stats heavy)

6 units - Psychology 200 (Principles of Psychology I*), 201 (Principles of Psychology II)

6 units - Psychology 300 (Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology I**), 301 (Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology II**)

6 units - Psychology 345 (Social Psychology), 375 (Brain and Behaviour)

9 units - Psychology 321 (Industrial and Organizational Psychology), 349 (Language Development), 351 (Developmental Psychology), 353 (Psychology of Aging), 365 (Cognitive Psychology), 369 (Sensation and Perception), 373 (Motivation), 383 (Personality), 385 (Abnormal Psychology).

3 units - Psychology 400 (Applied Research Methods**), 415 (Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology**), 425 (Human Factors), 427 (Environmental Psychology), 430 (Psychophysiology in Health Research), 435 (Behaviour Therapy), 478 (Behavioural Neuroscience), 504 (Directed Research in Psychology), 505 (Directed Research in Psychology).

15 units at the 400 or 500 level from Courses Constituting the Field of Psychology.

21 units - Biology 241 and 243 (same as the Bio req); Chemistry 201 or 211 and 203 or 213 (same as the Bio req); Mathematics 249 or 265 (same as the Bio req) and one of 211, 213, 253, 267; Physics 211 or 221 or 227 (one class less than the Bio req).

45 units to a maximum of 60 units in Courses Constituting the Field of Psychology.

Options are from those offered with the Co-operative Education program, so outside of the psych major.

There really isn't a significant difference in reqs. Once you get past the lower division you then making the Psych does require a much heavier load in higher level upper division classes, and the work in those classes can be brutal, so that needs to be weighed out. No lab work, but significant research which is time consuming and tedious. The BA is the same, just without the 21 units of Biology, Mathematics, and Physics. The difference there is usually more of a focus on Research Methods and Stats. The UofC catalogue for Psych courses is quite impressive, and you could spend five to six years just doing undergrad level classes with a regular load. They have some beasts in there as well, so on paper it looks like a pretty good program. The proof would be in the execution by the faculty, but that is the same for every school.

I think the problem here is that people take an Intro Psych class and think that's what all psych classes are like. It would be like taking an Intro Biology class and thinking that was all there was to biology. Digging deeper, things get way more complex and difficult. It is the same across all schools. And let me tell you, 400 level stats is waaaaaaay tougher than any of the pre-req math classes you'll be exposed to. Same with classes like Abnormal Psych, Qualitative, Design and Analysis, Neuropsych, etc. No degree is easy to achieve if the school is worth a damn and makes their students prove they understand theory, can apply that knowledge, and display a mastery of the subject matter. That's where the downfall lay.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Okay, that's some elitism talking. Every faculty holds their students to the same expectation. It's mandated through the accrediting body, and maintained with pride by most instructors. You are going to have some instructors who grade easier than others, but those exist in all faculties and are not restricted to one faculty. Grade average is also not a good measure as you may have a bunch of boneheads in a school that drag the average down or a bunch of really good students who low the curve.



Not a lot more work, just different work. Classes are normally designed to have a theoretical component and then an application component. The lab is your application component. In other majors, like the humanities, your application component is usually defined in some type of activity, like a formal presentation or a scholarly research paper, which is just as much work as lab time. You're not stuck in a lab doing work, but you're doing research and writing a 20 page paper on a given subject, which means you're stuck at your desk reviewing journal articles and papers. Different work, but just as demanding.



Yeah, I can see that. Econ is a much more useful degree than biology, from just strictly the job possibilities. There is a little bit of irony here when you consider that Economics is actually classified under the Faculty of Arts at UofC, and the idea presented that the Faculty of Arts being soft or easy.

Also, what is an unofficial minor? This made me giggle a bit. You either have one or you don't. It's like being unofficially pregnant. You have to declare and then you have to complete the requirements for the minor, which is usually 30 credits or more in a field of study, and 2/3rds of those credits being above introductory level (100/200 level). Usually this would require extra course work as you are doing significant work outside your science guided pathway, but I do see the BSc in Biological Sciences does give you opportunity to exploit 30 credits in Economics (Faculty of Art) without extra coursework (9 classes in Econ at the 300 level to meet all requirements) if you complete all breadth and non-major field requirements together. Crazy that if you were going down the road to not declare a minor.



Again, this is all perception. A BSc in biology has no more math than a BSc in Psychology. In fact, many of the class requirements for the degree are very similar for requisites in the science requirements. More on this later.



I can see someone making this argument, but I wouldn't. Math is the foundation of science and the language that allows scientists to communicate about their specific fields of study. Math is used to make clear definitions, comparisons, and validation of research. I'm not a math guy myself, and struggle with some of the advanced maths, but it is important to have that foundation and ability to present information. The complexity of the field of study and the importance is brings to every aspect of sciences - hard or soft - makes it a core foundation, and very much a field of study all unto itself and definitely meets the defection of a science. That's why is part of the Faculty of Science at almost all institutions.

You raised a point that made me want to show an example of degree requirements and why this argument of hard/soft science and BSc/BA is more smoke and mirrors than it is reality. Let's contrast this "tough" biology BSc with that "easy" BSc in psychology. All reqs from the University of Calgary.

Biology Requirements (*pre-reqs being completion of high school course work)

18 units of Biology - 241 (Intro to Energy Flow*), 243 (Intro to DNA, Inheritance, Evolution*), 311 (Principles of Genetics), 331 (Intro to Cellular and Molecular Bio)), 371 (Comparative Bio between Plants and Animals)

6 units of Chemistry - 201 (General/Intro Chem: Structure and Bonding*) or 211 (General/Intro Chem: Structure and Bonding*), 203 (General/Intro Chem: Change and Equilibrium*) or 213 (General/Intro Chem: Change and Equilibrium*) - The contrast between the 0X and 1X classes being a concentration on critical thinking, meaning 0X are remedial classes.

6 units - One of Mathematics 249 (Introduction to calculus*)or 265 (University Calculus I) or 275 (Calculus for Engineers and Scientists) and one of Mathematics 211 (Linear Methods I*) or 213 (Linear Algebra I*) or 267 (University Calculus II) or 277 (Multivariable Calculus) or Statistics 327 (Statistics for Physical and Environmental Science)

6 units - Computer Science 217 (Introduction of Computer Science [structured programming]*) or Data Science 211 (Programming with data - basic programming), and Computer Science 219 (Introduction of Computer Science [object oriented programming]); or Computer Science 231 (Introduction of Computer Science [structured programming]) and 233 (Introduction of Computer Science [object oriented programming]); or Geology 201 (Principles of Geoscience*) and 202 (Application of Geoscience); or Physics 211 (introduction to Mechanics*), or 221 (Introduction to Mechanics*), and 223 (Introduction to Electromagnetism and Thermal)

3 units - Biochemistry 393 (Introduction to Biochemistry)

3 units - Chemistry 351 (Organic Chem I)

3 units - Chemistry 353 (Organic Chem II) or option

15 units - From the Field of Biological Sciences

12 units - From the Field of Biological Sciences at the 400 level or higher

18 units - Breadth Requirement: Options from faculties other than the Faculty of Science, excluding courses in Table I. Of these, at least 6 units must be from the Faculty of Arts. Science 311 may be counted among the courses from other faculties.

15 units - Non-Major Field Requirement: Options that are not in the Field of Biological Sciences

15 units - Options

Psychology Requirements (** math or stats heavy)

6 units - Psychology 200 (Principles of Psychology I*), 201 (Principles of Psychology II)

6 units - Psychology 300 (Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology I**), 301 (Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology II**)

6 units - Psychology 345 (Social Psychology), 375 (Brain and Behaviour)

9 units - Psychology 321 (Industrial and Organizational Psychology), 349 (Language Development), 351 (Developmental Psychology), 353 (Psychology of Aging), 365 (Cognitive Psychology), 369 (Sensation and Perception), 373 (Motivation), 383 (Personality), 385 (Abnormal Psychology).

3 units - Psychology 400 (Applied Research Methods**), 415 (Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology**), 425 (Human Factors), 427 (Environmental Psychology), 430 (Psychophysiology in Health Research), 435 (Behaviour Therapy), 478 (Behavioural Neuroscience), 504 (Directed Research in Psychology), 505 (Directed Research in Psychology).

15 units at the 400 or 500 level from Courses Constituting the Field of Psychology.

21 units - Biology 241 and 243 (same as the Bio req); Chemistry 201 or 211 and 203 or 213 (same as the Bio req); Mathematics 249 or 265 (same as the Bio req) and one of 211, 213, 253, 267; Physics 211 or 221 or 227 (one class less than the Bio req).

45 units to a maximum of 60 units in Courses Constituting the Field of Psychology.

Options are from those offered with the Co-operative Education program, so outside of the psych major.

There really isn't a significant difference in reqs. Once you get past the lower division you then making the Psych does require a much heavier load in higher level upper division classes, and the work in those classes can be brutal, so that needs to be weighed out. No lab work, but significant research which is time consuming and tedious. The BA is the same, just without the 21 units of Biology, Mathematics, and Physics. The difference there is usually more of a focus on Research Methods and Stats. The UofC catalogue for Psych courses is quite impressive, and you could spend five to six years just doing undergrad level classes with a regular load. They have some beasts in there as well, so on paper it looks like a pretty good program. The proof would be in the execution by the faculty, but that is the same for every school.

I think the problem here is that people take an Intro Psych class and think that's what all psych classes are like. It would be like taking an Intro Biology class and thinking that was all there was to biology. Digging deeper, things get way more complex and difficult. It is the same across all schools. And let me tell you, 400 level stats is waaaaaaay tougher than any of the pre-req math classes you'll be exposed to. Same with classes like Abnormal Psych, Qualitative, Design and Analysis, Neuropsych, etc. No degree is easy to achieve if the school is worth a damn and makes their students prove they understand theory, can apply that knowledge, and display a mastery of the subject matter. That's where the downfall lay.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[TheIronMaiden]

I'll never understand folks dick swinging about which degrees are the most useful or difficult to get. Bottom line is graduating university takes lots of hard work, dedication and sacrifice. Applying those skills will make you successful in anything you do.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I'll never understand folks dick swinging about which degrees are the most useful or difficult to get. Bottom line is graduating university takes lots of hard work, dedication and sacrifice. Applying those skills will make you successful in anything you do.

Shout out fellow English grad.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

IBottom line is graduating university takes lots of hard work, dedication and sacrifice. Applying those skills will make you successful in anything you do.

Do you think this is still true in 2021?

The article I opened the thread with argues that many students are not getting much out of their degrees. I mostly don't think that's an arts vs science issue, but rather the supply of university grads has gone up (and maybe standards down?) It has gotten to the point where that piece alleged that some grads were barely literate. If its possible to graduate university under those conditions then I wouldn't expect much value from a degree.

As with many things you probably get out what you put in, but given the cost of education (both in $ to society and the student and in time) it seems like higher standards might be useful.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Do you think this is still true in 2021?

The article I opened the thread with argues that many students are not getting much out of their degrees. I mostly don't think that's an arts vs science issue, but rather the supply of university grads has gone up (and maybe standards down?) It has gotten to the point where that piece alleged that some grads were barely literate. If its possible to graduate university under those conditions then I wouldn't expect much value from a degree.

As with many things you probably get out what you put in, but given the cost of education (both in $ to society and the student and in time) it seems like higher standards might be useful.

I think it certainly does relate to how much you put in = how much you get out. I have worked as a sessional instructor and can confirm that there is pressure to 'help students pass' but this is always within reason. There is a green light to flunk students who don't do the work. it is more that the expectation is that you give them an opportunity to make up for "mistakes".

The problem I would say is both institutional and caused the maturity of the students. Students who go straight from High School have less respect for what they are doing, don't take the classes or process seriously. Those who worked full time for a year understand that they are training for a better life, and respect that the process of putting work into Uni is developing professional skills.

Nevertheless, universities operate as businesses, and more and more students are customers, and so the adage "the customer is always right" comes into play. If you're a hard ass you get lambasted on the student feed back forms and on rate my proff. The trick is to try develop skills while giving people their "participation awards" and in which sense it is likely more true than ever that the grade is not a fair representation of what the student learned.

Still, I would maintain that this does not devalue a university degree. Education is a right. and people are better off for having a gone to university even if it is not as prestigious as it once was. If you really wanted to combat the business model of universities you would make university education free, or funding not based on attendance so that professors can flunk bad students at higher rates and not have to worry about their livelyhood.

[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"?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Still, I would maintain that this does not devalue a university degree. Education is a right. and people are better off for having a gone to university even if it is not as prestigious as it once was. If you really wanted to combat the business model of universities you would make university education free, or funding not based on attendance so that professors can flunk bad students at higher rates and not have to worry about their livelyhood.

How much education do you think is a basic human right? I'm 100% on board with free public school, and my kids attend public school. But where do you draw the line at how much school everyone else pays for?

The student taking the Masters in Women's and Gender Studies wanted free tuition. How long should that last? Putting aside the specific degree, at some point you need to pay for your own life, and I'm not sure the rest of society should fund a Bachelor/masters/PhD/postdoc.

There's already a significant contribution from taxpayers to post secondary - making it free without limiting spots will just devalue it further as those who have no business being there figure there isn't any downside.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I think it certainly does relate to how much you put in = how much you get out. I have worked as a sessional instructor and can confirm that there is pressure to 'help students pass' but this is always within reason. There is a green light to flunk students who don't do the work. it is more that the expectation is that you give them an opportunity to make up for "mistakes".

The problem I would say is both institutional and caused the maturity of the students. Students who go straight from High School have less respect for what they are doing, don't take the classes or process seriously. Those who worked full time for a year understand that they are training for a better life, and respect that the process of putting work into Uni is developing professional skills.

Nevertheless, universities operate as businesses, and more and more students are customers, and so the adage "the customer is always right" comes into play. If you're a hard ass you get lambasted on the student feed back forms and on rate my proff. The trick is to try develop skills while giving people their "participation awards" and in which sense it is likely more true than ever that the grade is not a fair representation of what the student learned.

Still, I would maintain that this does not devalue a university degree. Education is a right. and people are better off for having a gone to university even if it is not as prestigious as it once was. If you really wanted to combat the business model of universities you would make university education free, or funding not based on attendance so that professors can flunk bad students at higher rates and not have to worry about their livelyhood.

Wonderfully stated.

I chucked at "Rate My Professor", the bane of instructors everywhere.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

How much education do you think is a basic human right? I'm 100% on board with free public school, and my kids attend public school. But where do you draw the line at how much school everyone else pays for?

The student taking the Masters in Women's and Gender Studies wanted free tuition. How long should that last? Putting aside the specific degree, at some point you need to pay for your own life, and I'm not sure the rest of society should fund a Bachelor/masters/PhD/postdoc.

There's already a significant contribution from taxpayers to post secondary - making it free without limiting spots will just devalue it further as those who have no business being there figure there isn't any downside.

If universities were securely funded despite the number of students they had they could fail students at higher rates making the degree hold more value. As it stands now universities don't fail bad students because they need their money. Making university more expensive would only ensure that it was pay to pass.

I would rather live in a world where everyone got more education even if it was for something I had no interest in, than for a world where wealthy people can pay for a piece of paper that says they are smarter. ( naturally this is a false dichotomy, but it stands as an example of how universities function when they are afraid to fail students for business reasons).

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

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.

No.

Engineering typically attracts a very high level of aptitude and intelligence. It's an objectively harder degree to get than just about any other undergrad degree. I did fairly well in biology, but may not have had the drive to complete an engineering degree. It was just harder.

Your premise that all programs have more or less equal standards is absurd.

I do think you do make a point about intelligence generally, and that there are different kinds of intelligence and aptitude, and that one is no better than another, just different. Hence, why I would state that anyone excelling in any degree is intelligent in some way. However, certain degrees can be attained by floating by and doing the bare minimum. This isn't true of any science degree, especially engineering. For example, I would not call graduating with a C average with a BA in sociology all that impressive. Of course that ignores challenges that a person may need to overcome in their personal life out side of the academic realm. I'm talking about your average Canadian university student with an average upbringing.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I'll never understand folks dick swinging about which degrees are the most useful or difficult to get. Bottom line is graduating university takes lots of hard work, dedication and sacrifice. Applying those skills will make you successful in anything you do.

This isn't meant to be "dick swinging". This is directly on point to the discussion. Canadian universities are allowing too many students to coast through, which dilutes the value of degrees and creates a massive bill for tax payers.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by blankall

Engineering typically attracts a very high level of aptitude and intelligence. It's an objectively harder degree to get than just about any other undergrad degree. I did fairly well in biology, but may not have had the drive to complete an engineering degree. It was just harder.

As does almost every faculty. The students have very different aptitudes and skills, which is why some people don't do well in certain programs, but kick ass in others. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about engineering or any other students and their level of intelligence. I have met just as many "stupid" engineers as I have any other discipline. Students in one discipline are no smarter or intelligent than any other. That is just an incredibly arrogant and silly thing to say. These people have leveraged their intelligence and developed their skill in an area where they have a strength, but that does not make them more intelligent or more aware of anything. I have met very intelligent people in every faculty, and a similar number of people who are incredibly dim witted in the same faculty. Intelligence or aptitude to success is not determined by the faculty you earned your degree from.

Your premise that all programs have more or less equal standards is absurd.

No, the absurd thing is to think that instructors in one faculty have higher standards than faculty in others. It is even more absurd to think that accrediting bodies would allow such poor levels of equity to exist in an institution. Again, there are standards that schools must maintain, and there are processes in place to measure and validate the efficacy and success of those standards. Schools measure everything and have clear concise numbers they use to maintain their accreditation, so yes, all programs have equal standards because it is mandated by the accrediting body, and failure to maintain that standard results in the loss of the school's accreditation and the value of all degrees become nil. Schools take accreditation very seriously because of the outcomes from failure to meet the standard.

I do think you do make a point about intelligence generally, and that there are different kinds of intelligence and aptitude, and that one is no better than another, just different. Hence, why I would state that anyone excelling in any degree is intelligent in some way. However, certain degrees can be attained by floating by and doing the bare minimum. This isn't true of any science degree, especially engineering. For example, I would not call graduating with a C average with a BA in sociology all that impressive. Of course that ignores challenges that a person may need to overcome in their personal life out side of the academic realm. I'm talking about your average Canadian university student with an average upbringing.

Intelligence comes in may be displayed in many forms. And they contribute greatly to the success an individual may have a program. Gardner’s Theory of multiple intelligences suggests there are nine distinct intelligences, and people may access multiple intelligences to have a competitive advantage. I like to refer to this as the renaissance thinker, represented by the Vitruvian Man. The intelligences are verbal-linguistic, spatial-visual, logical-mathematical, body-kinesthetic, interpersonal (emotional), intrapersonal (reflective), existential, musical, and naturalist. You can imagine where people fit. Engineers are going to be very strong in logical-mathematical. Biologists strong in naturalist. Counselors strong in interpersonal/intrapersonal. Different intelligences allow for success in different fields. No one is ultimately more intelligent than the next, just are more in tune with specific intelligences in their brain.

I still don't get what you are saying about grades in one faculty and thinking they don't apply to the other. Yeah, someone who finished with C average in in discipline is kind of not someone you hold up as a shining authority on anything. I don't want my bridges being designed by an engineer who got through with a C average, but there are lots of them out there. Worse, that is a C average in the discipline where their sweet spot is supposed to be found! I don't find any C student to be impressive by any stretch of the imagination. If you didn't pull straight A's and graduate with a braid, you're not going to really float to the top anyway, regardless of the faculty you graduated from. I really hope we can agree on that?

BTW, I do agree that schools are graduating way too many students. I think TheIronMaiden hit it on the head when they said schools are businesses and they want to keep customers happy. To me, that is wrong. They need to apply academic rigor across the board and make sure they make students earn their degree. There are too many students getting through that probably shouldn't, and that waters down the value of degrees. That is the same in every faculty BTW. Too many substandard students get pushed through so schools can maintain the graduation rate expected by those nasty accrediting bodies. The requirements need to rise, but that starts long before higher education. That needs to start in grade school. But that is unlikely to happen because there are too many parents who believe their kid is special and could never fail at anything. The kids have this attitude and it's impossible to correct once they get out of high school. Fix this, and the education system can possibly be saved.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

As it stands now universities don't fail bad students because they need their money.

Why do universities need more students than they did in the past? By reducing enrolment through higher standards, wouldn’t they also reduce costs?