Waterloo and Admission Averages

[Intrigued]

I can see just by scanning the topics that this questions has been asked many times before but I can't find the right one to explain my predicament. I applied to multiple science courses at Waterloo as well as a bachelor of science at Guelph and and bachelor of Chemistry at Laurier. Now there are a few questions that I have. With the marks that I have right now, I have around a 76-77% average, the average admission for the courses I'm taking are all 75% at Waterloo so that means that my chances of getting in should be good. But people have been telling me admission averages have been skyrocketing and now I feel like my admission perhaps may be in jeopardy.

Also, if I get into the science course at Laurier how hard would it be to transfer to Waterloo and what steps would I have to take? As you can tell I only applied to Guelph and Laurier so I could transfer to Waterloo if I failed to get in directly

Based on the answers to this thread, if any, I might retake biology, my biology mark is dragging me down with a 68 and then I might as well take something else because my school requires minimum two courses if you retake and I have no courses next semester.

Edit : I know my average cuts it close and a lot of people must assume that 76-77% is not good enough for Waterloo and that I shouldn't bother asking these questions but its my work ethic not my intelligence. I started strong with 97% in Chem but just plummeted

[McKenzie]

There is a mysterious X-Factor in your admission calculation. Not every high school has the same standards. A student with an 85% from school X is not the same as a student with an 85% from school Y. Most Universities feel that marks are etched in stone and that they are morally obliged to treat all schools the same. Waterloo believes that it is more important to take the best students rather than just the ones with the highest marks, so they will adjust your average up or down based on past perfomance of grads from your high school. It's not a big factor, but when you are on the cusp, as you are, it can mean the difference. Waterloo does not disclose which schools they favour/disfavour to avoid endless complaints. Talk to some of your teachers and/or guidance they may know.

[Tony]

it is said that Waterloo's AIF - Additional Information Form (info about your high school, hobbies, interests, achievements, etc) could change your admission average by up to 10%.

I find Waterloo to be pretty difficult on transfers. From what I've heard and saw (personal experience) it's so much easier to get in on the first try from high school, than to transfer from another (or even the same!) University. Though if your first year Uni performance is a substantial improvement over high school, then you do stand a better chance.

[Prabhakar Ragde]

McKenzie @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:32 am wrote:

Waterloo believes that it is more important to take the best students rather than just the ones with the highest marks, so they will adjust your average up or down based on past perfomance of grads from your high school.

This is the case only for the Faculty of Engineering.

More to the point, a weak work ethic is even more of a problem in university than it is in high school. Many first-year students with high incoming averages who have coasted through high school on ability hit a brick wall. Perhaps the OP should focus on pulling up their grades rather than trying to game the system to get in, only to fail out later on. --PR

[Dan]

Comment removed/edited as it might give the impersion that my views are that of the sites rather then just my self.
Summery of then rant was just that basising admision averages based on the school one goes to rather then there ablitys, performcen and learning capasity is not ethical and could be consdiered desmerimentatry.


Also waterloo is not the only school for computer science in canada, there are many universitys in canada and ontario that provied a great education (if not as good as waterloo's) and whould be willing to acpect some one with your averages. Tho as PR side above you need a good work ethic no matter what university you go to, even if you some how could pass year to year you still whould not get a great education if you do not do the work and that is the point of university, not just passing.

[McKenzie]

Dan, I know what you are saying, but you have to admit that there is a problem with marks at high schools. Even from teacher to teacher within any given school an 85% does not mean the same thing. Either choosing to ignore this difference, or choosing to slightly modify the admission marks has problems. As I'm sure you are aware Massey has an awesome math program. There was a brilliant but lazy kid two years back who switched schools so that he could be lazy and get great marks. Obviously he is going to have a hard time when he goes to university and has to do hard work, but that is the whole point of having admission requirements. The school only wants to accept kids it feels will succeed. Is it fair for him to be admitted into a program over another Massey student with the same marks as him but clearly is a stronger student?

I didn't know that it is only for Engineering, I thought at was for all Math & Science. I'll have to look into that.

[Dan]

McKenzie @ 26th January 2008, 10:45 am wrote:

Dan, I know what you are saying, but you have to admit that there is a problem with marks at high schools. Even from teacher to teacher within any given school an 85% does not mean the same thing. Either choosing to ignore this difference, or choosing to slightly modify the admission marks has problems. As I'm sure you are aware Massey has an awesome math program. There was a brilliant but lazy kid two years back who switched schools so that he could be lazy and get great marks. Obviously he is going to have a hard time when he goes to university and has to do hard work, but that is the whole point of having admission requirements. The school only wants to accept kids it feels will succeed. Is it fair for him to be admitted into a program over another Massey student with the same marks as him but clearly is a stronger student?

I realy did not whont to get in to this rant since it is not that on topic so i will try to keep this short:

Simpley put, although the idea behind basiing the averages may seem good at first simplye puting some thought in to the full effects of it will show the problem. The bigest one is that it is not a vaild statical anayalis of an invidual student. If you take the averages of all students in a school and then baises them by some % determined on the students from the year befor, you are making some big assumtions witch are not ture. The first asumption is that all studetens take the same corses and have the same teacher in every year to get to the same program. As far as i know it is mostly up to teachers to decied how they mark there students (as long as it fits with the school broads policys) so each invudal teacher in the high school is going to mark diffrently and thus the avarge of every student is not going to be basied the same by the highschool to get to the same program. Also teachers come and go and not all teachers teach the same class each year so a simple basies on the overall average of that school ignores all this and you might as well pick random numbers in all but the most extream cases (the best schools and the worst schools).

Now there is also a big ethical compoent to this, even if you are right about massey having an awesome math program, not every student in ontario can go to massey. In fact very few can unless they live with in the bounds of the school. Also transfering schools with out moving is not easy, noramly the school borad will not provid you with transporation any more and a parent will have to be respaoble for geting the kid to school each day. This becomes a masive problem for faimlys that have both parents working and almost means that only faimlys that are weathly can resnabley have there kid change high schools with out moving so for most part you are stuck with the school you are assigned to unless you are ritch or have some kind of transpartion method outside the system. There is also the fact that high schools in ritcher areas tend to be better then ones in poorer areas, so this means no matter how smart, how much effort or the ablity of a student in a low income area there high school is going to be realted lower and there mark will be lower to waterloo. This problem becomes even more exagerated when you look at private schools witch totaly elemante poorer students and have more resorces at hand.

Also i do not blive that all the "good" high schools are realy as good as they claim to be. Most know how the system works so they play it as fully as they can by teaching to test (the CCC and waterloo math contests). This does not make there students better learners or of a higgher ablity, it just means they can cram for a test.

As for you example of a student switching schools to get a higher grade, the opsite can be ture too. Students in schools that are rated higher can get a higger admision average at waterloo for less work if they simpley do not take hard corses that are not requiered. For example computer science is not requiered to get in to computer science in waterloo and taking it just makes it count as a U level corse in the caulations. So a student at massey lets say, could go to that schools and take a easy U level corse rather then computer sci and still get the asmasion average boost that was from the students taking it since the basing is done over all on the marks. There is also the case of the great students that try there hardest to learn at the "bad" high schools. They could be the best student in ontario but there average whould still be basied becues there fiamly is poor or they just ened up in a crapy area.

So you ask is it far for that student to be admited over a massny one? How about is it fair for ALL or most massey students to be admited over one with a higher average and same or equal ablility but just happens to have a poor faimly? In my mind it is 1000s of times worse to be descirmating on a student do to there faimlys location or income then have massy students needing more then just going to massny to get in. Are you realying going to say that there is some one who is a better qualifed to asses a students ablity in a class then there teacher? The only reason why some teachers give unfairly high marks is becues of the crazy admision systems unviersitys have or becues they work for a private school that needs to show results to there customers (there parents). By Basising schools like this it will only encorage teachers to give higher and higer marks and stop teach to the cirucalm and start teaching to the waterloo tests and to things that will imperess waterloo. The truth is to do well in unveristy you do not need to know everything you are going to learn witch the adveced CCC and math tests seem to mark for but you do need to know how to learn. Some one that knows how to do Convex Hulls in grade 11 will not nessary be a better learner or do better at university then a student that just knows what the high school circulem says they need to know.

As you side in your first post in this topic, other university do not do this for moral reasons, there is a reason why....

[McKenzie]

Sure, teachers change, and programs change, but by-and-by these changes are slow. As I've said already biasing marks is not a perfect solution. I personally think it is a reasonable one. You may never agree with it as a policy, but if you are going to say that it is totally unthinkable, I don't think you're being honest about the issue. I've been around. I've taught at three different schools across the province and I've seen a lot of programs. Specifically in the CS area I've seen programs where a number of the kids know more than the teacher so the teacher is forced to give them 95-100% because he can't properly evaluate them. If those same students went to a school with a stronger program would they still get 95-100%, probably. It's not the extreme upper end that is the issue. It is the ones on the edge of getting in or not that are affected.

I understand your concerns about socio-economic factors affecting ones chances, but at some point the University has to ask who has the best chance of surviving here. I think looking at the school they came from and their contest results helps with this decision.

I don't buy into your scenario that they are turning away these fantastic hard working kids that just happen to go to an under-privileged school. I totally agree that some kids get into University that don't deserve it and some kids get turned away that fully deserve it, but I think academic dishonesty if a far bigger concern. Loads of kids cheat there way through school and get hired by a company because of their credentials but they are actually fairly useless.

[Dan]

McKenzie @ 26th January 2008, 7:12 pm wrote:

I understand your concerns about socio-economic factors affecting ones chances, but at some point the University has to ask who has the best chance of surviving here. I think looking at the school they came from and their contest results helps with this decision.

Why stop there then? Why not consider there relgion, race, if they have disbalitys and more? I am prity shure some one with a learning disblity are going to have a harder time in university and just in life in genreal then your complety average person. So why not lower there admision averarge? If we do statical anayslis on race to how they perfomer in university i am shure we will find some trends there too, so why not lower there average for any one of a give race if they are less likey to secued staticly becues it is exctaly the same as basiing by the school the only diffrence at all is how you are being discrimentory. For the mental/learning disbality example it whould be hard to aruge that they whould have an as good chance of survivng university adecmicaly as another student with no acodemications so why let them in? The awser is simple it's just not ehtical to do so and what i comes down to is stero-typing gorups.

McKenzie @ 26th January 2008, 7:12 pm wrote:

I don't buy into your scenario that they are turning away these fantastic hard working kids that just happen to go to an under-privileged school.

But thats exctaly what they are doing when they lower the admisiong average based on the school. Even if it got ride of 99% of the undserving students there is still that 1% who gets screwed over unjustly and for descirmtatory reasons.

McKenzie @ 26th January 2008, 7:12 pm wrote:

I totally agree that some kids get into University that don't deserve it and some kids get turned away that fully deserve it, but I think academic dishonesty if a far bigger concern. Loads of kids cheat there way through school and get hired by a company because of their credentials but they are actually fairly useless.

I think academic dishonesty is a probelm and that students who do cheat there way threw high school should not get in to university and should get kicked out of univeritys if they make it that far for cheating. However 2 wrongs do not make a right, we can not use an unethical policy to stop unethical stuednts. If we realy whont to stop undesrving students or cheating studetns from geting in we should do somthing at the high school level and realxe the admison averages, or just make univeritys bigger and weed them out in first year justly.

I think it is far worse for 1 student to be deneined an eudcation unjustly then 1000 being given one unjustly. In the end it only hurts the student if they get in unjustly (if admison requerments where sainer) as they will not learn and fail latter on in life but refusing education to a student that is able and willing to learn can destory there life at no fault of there own.

[PaulButler]

Cheating is an unfortunate problem in high school, but I think a bigger problem is gaming the system. By gaming the system I mean exploiting the fact that the correlation between marks and effort is not perfect. For example, choosing courses based on the mark you will get instead of how much you will learn.

Disappointingly, I have found that this is a fairly prominent attitude at UW. When you select people by the marks they get, you get people who have figured out how to get good marks, not necessarily people who are smart and hard working (for the record, I am not claiming to be either one). I don't think of any specific people when I say this, it's just the general attitude I see.

[McKenzie]

Dan @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:29 pm wrote:

But thats exctaly what they are doing when they lower the admisiong average based on the school. Even if it got ride of 99% of the undserving students there is still that 1% who gets screwed over unjustly and for descirmtatory reasons.

Either way you work the system, good, hard-working, deserving kids will get cut, and less-deserving ones will get in. For example, at Massey kids who would get 50-60% at most schools in math often fail and have to go to summer school. It's unfair to them, there is no two ways about it, but it is one of the trade-offs that comes from having very high standards. By the same token if a kid at Massey gets a 60% in math I think it's unfair for them to be denied access to University simply because they live near Massey.

As far as you extrapolation into other areas, the important distinction is that the university is not looking at a student and saying "because you went to this school, you are not as smart as someone else." What they are saying is school X has different standards than school Y, and the level of skill required to get an 85% is different we need to adjust the numbers to better reflect the real skill level. After all, marks are just an approximation of skill, you can never truly evaluate how skillful someone is.

Paul, I mostly agree. I do think you NEED to play the game a bit in university. I mean, your top priority should be on taking courses that help you learn and grow. But I think you can afford to take one option a year that you can get an easy A in to help you focus on your core courses. But I've seen kids switch classes because one teacher is an easier marker than another and I've even had a kid who didn't take my grade 12 CS because it was too hard, then went off to university for CS.

[Dan]

I think we will have to adgree to disarge on this as it is an ethical question and ethics very from person to person. I still don't think gaming the system should be needed tho or that using any steroy typing in admision averages is good........

[Prabhakar Ragde]

McKenzie @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:22 am wrote:

Paul, I mostly agree. I do think you NEED to play the game a bit in university. I mean, your top priority should be on taking courses that help you learn and grow. But I think you can afford to take one option a year that you can get an easy A in to help you focus on your core courses.

There is no need to do this. Your top priority should be on taking courses that help you learn and grow. Period. --PR

[[Gandalf]]

Oh yeah, and ignore the $1000s you're spending on that education. Hah. You take courses that help you learn and grow within the boundaries of the system.

[McKenzie]

Is it OK to study before tests?
I went to school with a guy who would never study before tests because it was gaming. You are artificially raising your knowledge before the test in a way that will not permanently increase your skill/knowledge.