Please explain how I watched maybe 6 streetcars go in to spadina station within the span of 10 mins and have been waiting for my southbound streetcar for 15 mins. Where the hell are they going bro is spadina eatin them like π
Note: This is gonna be a long post but it goes in depth abt my thoughts on each course and the profs. I also didn't take mat135 or 136 cus I don't need it for either of the majors (psych, neuro) i'm doing and am jus gonna do phy131 next year. So I don't have prof reviews, but from what i've heard.. not the greatest experiences LMAO. the math department here is one of little mercy so
bio120: taught by prof. mahler and fredrickson. in my opinion, not very difficult, but the material does get boring for a lotta people. the readings can be tedious too. not because they're excessively that long always, but usually more so just cus it gets boring for people. it's largely just principles of evolution so.. if you can wrap your head around the mechanisms of evolution you're good. the later part of the course just becomes weird imo. not "difficult" per se, but just.. odd, as you move into stuff about like.. wind n stuff. also the midterms and exams have some questions that are so out of nowhere and random that you'll jus be confused. but they're all mcq so, it's not that bad. the labs are also pretty chill, but can also be boring to some people and the grading of lab assignments highly depends on your TA. There's no actual lab reports, but there are in class labs which are based on reading lab manual material but it's also open book so it's not bad at all, but it is writing based which is why it's based on TA a lot.
\\\\-Prof Mahler: imo, great guy. explained things rlly well, and the structuring of his slides was rlly nice in sectioning/organizing information throughout, and in sectioning relevant information together.
\\\\-Prof Fredrickson: had the personality and energy to teach, and has been teaching this course forever. but imo Mahler explained things better. her slides were also structured worse so there's a lot of times where I just got confused by what information connected with what. this may have just been a me thing but in general I, and a good amount of my friends agree that Mahler's structure was better. but not a bad prof by any means, she still explained things pretty well, you just needa connect some things on your own sometimes which isn't rlly difficult in this course since it's not a technical course.
chm135: I was taught by Profs Deon, Wilson and Seferos (RIP π). In my opinion, this course's difficulty will be largely based on how well you can absorb information based from each prof's style of teaching. The material isn't especially difficult in my opinion, but that may largely be since I took gr12 physics and chem, so it was a lot of similar material just expanded a bit. If you haven't taken those, you probably will find it somewhat difficult. There's 3 sections to the course (light+law 1 thermodynamics, kinetics+acid/base chem, and law 2+3 of thermodynamics+redox chem) and none of them (except week 1 which is just.. basic chem principles. and some overlap with kinetics and thermodynamics law 3) really add up with each other much, they're kinda all their own separate thing. Labs were pretty good imo. You have a lab partner through the sem who you work on the labs with together, so if you get along with them well you'll find the labs pretty chill. My TA was also a pretty chill guy so it worked out well for me. Lab reports are tedious though, they make you use excel to organize info and make graphs, which isn't difficult, and they provide step by step guides on how to do it for every lab, but it is rlly time consuming for a few of the labs.
\\-Prof Deon: Imo the best prof in that course out of the 3 I had. Explained things really well and her structuring of material was rlly intuitive and made the flow of information understandable. She also answered questions really well.
\\-Prof Wilson: Def the most enthusiastic of the 3, you can tell the guys doing what he loves. But his explanations of concepts just weren't my type, and his slides were confusingly structured to me. But that's likely a personal me thing cus ik a lotta my friends had no issues with his teaching
\\-Prof Seferos: Wont comment much, taught decent, you could tell he was a nice person, just didn't have much energy, (assuming now that he's passed.. due to whatever it was he was going through). Nothing but respect for the guy, Rest in Peace π
Bio130+Prof Yip: Listen, and listen fucking close. Take this course with Yip. Even if you can't make enrollment into his section (6-9pm), go to his lectures if you can, both sections have the exact same material and assessments. This guy, is my fkin goat. He explains things amazingly. Once he goes through a multi-slide process with multiple parts and mechanisms, he'll do a summary of it, explaining the whole process and parts and mechanisms together. Things that may be confusing for students he will literally word for word tell you what to write in your notes. He will tell you things that students often forget or miss and tell you to note them down so you don't get confused abt stuff. This guy is, either my top 1 or top 2 prof of this year. I only went to one lecture (the first one) in the morning section so I can't comment on how it is personally, but every one of my friends that usually went to the morning ones and then went to Yip's one in the evening absolutely agreed he was way better, not cus the morning profs were bad necessarily, but just cus he is that good. He's chill, funny, engaging, literally everything you could ask for from a prof. So far as every week he'll survey the class if his pace is okay and adjust his pace accordingly. As far as the material goes, it can be a lot for some people but it isn't unbearable, it's largely process based so you can kinda string information together in your head. More difficult than bio120 but also a lot more interesting. There also isn't \\\\\\\*really\\\\\\\* readings in it, the textbook material is basically just the lecture material with extra information you won't be tested on aside from the weekly textbook quizzes. There's nothing on the midterm or exam from the textbook that wasn't in lecture. Labs in this course are also a lot more interesting, and interactive. Also no lab reports, just lab quizzes and assignments which weren't bad at all if you just read the lab manual bfr.
Chm136: I was taught by Prof. Luska and Chin. Most people find this more difficult than 135. I personally found this easier since all the information throughout the entire course works together. It's all one big flow of information. This course (and tbh all courses, but this one esp) you need to learn to learn through understanding how things happen and not just memorizing that they do. Most people, don't realize they learn through just tryna memorize the stuff that happens and not actually get it, if you haven't changed that til now, you'll needa start changing it here. Orgo chem def gets worse from here but this course in particular in my opinion is not all that bad if you are able to understand different ways of drawing compounds, and electron movement.
\\-Prof. Luska: This is the guy I have up in my top 2 with Yip. This guy is also the goat. Explains things very well and thoroughly, answers questions amazingly. Genuinely made this course so much easier than it would've been with a prof that explained things less. He's enthusiastic, and engaging as well, he made listening to orgo chem both digestible and not boring somehow. Actual goat along with Yip
\\-Prof. Chin: Not bad, but a very noticeable drop from Luska just cus of how thorough he was. He also messed up explaining a couple things in class but corrected himself the next week. He did still explain things thoroughly but also got sidetracked sometimes on the small sections in the slides where they explain how the concept taught is lol. You can tell this guy also has a passion for what he does, and still is a decent prof, we just got spoiled by having Luska for 2/3 of the sem lol.
Psy100+Prof Whissel: I took this class with Prof. Whissel. His section and Denton's section are completely separate, and have their own material and assessments. I'll go in depth on his section and explain what I know of Denton's. Psych as a subject entirely is something you will find boring if you don't like it or aren't interested in it. As someone that is interested in it though, I found this course not bad at all, though ik this isn't the general consensus. Psych can be counterintuitive to a lotta people, and may just seem abstract, so many people find this course difficult, a large part of the reason I didn't is cus of 1. my interest in it and 2. my past experience in it. Prof Whissel is right below Yip and Luska for my profs this year. Him and Yip made 3 hour lectures not get boring or tiring somehow, he's very engaging, and explains things really well. Genuinely a great guy too.
\\-Comparing the two sections: Basically the main difference (aside from the profs) is the grade breakdown. In whissel's section the breakdown is entirely assessments+4% SONA (two 25% midterms, and a 46% final+4% SONA participation). I don't know what denton's breakdown is, but they have other things and also have readings which are included in the assessments. Whissel's section has no readings at all, all material that's tested is in lecture. And in my opinion, even tho a 96% of your grade being tests sounds really intimidating, so long as you're interested in psych and study the lecs well, the tests in whissel's section aren't that difficult. From what I've heard of denton (again, not personal experience so I can't confirm but this is jus what I've heard), she's not a bad lecturer at all, but gets sidetracked a lot, and the readings can get pretty long and tedious, and you don't have a choice but to do them cus they're testable. Personally, I loved whissel and if you're actually interested in learning psych, I'd say take his class.
Elective Review
Before I start I'd like to preface to incoming students, the following are all bird courses. But, a bird course is NOT a \\\*free\\\* 90, it's a course where if you go to lecs, do readings (if there are any), and study properly, you can expect a pretty decent chance of getting an 80-85+.
ENV100+Prof. Appolloni: Really easily course. Prof. Appolloni is def the most enjoyable prof I had. Guy was funny as hell, engaging, and kept the course interesting despite it being really basic. The course assessments are writing based, so marking depends on TA. The readings are pretty short but you do NEED to do them. And you kinda needa go to lectures cus the slides themselves don't have much explanations on them, but the readings can also cover for that if you miss the lec anyways. Also a lot of opportunities for free marks are given here, between an in class participation thing, tutorial attendance, and a couple other stuff. Not at all hard to get high marks 85+ in this course
HPS110+Profs. Mark and Marga: This course is basically a historical, surface level social psych course. Goes over past developments in social psych, why they happened, how they happened, etc. Overall in my opinion as someone who is interested in psych, a very interesting course. There are readings, and assessments are also writing based, but you get a lot of free marks from just going to tutorial. All the TAs are rlly good from what i've heard too. Because of it being writing based, it's harder to get like an 85-90+ in this course than in env100, but getting above an 80 is pretty doable, after that it's kinda just specifics in writing.
NOTE: Both in HPS110 and Env100, they give a full question bank before all assessments, including the final. The bank has all the possible questions that could be asked in the upcoming assessment, which helps a LOT.
Imm250+Profs Buechler, Gommerman and Watts: This course is technical but it's an intro course and very process based. So if you're able to piece together information into a process the entire course has. It's not very difficult and imo all the profs explain things in an understandable way. There's an assignment during the term which is marked by a TA so that highly depends on your TA, but the assessments aren't all that difficult and honestly have a good amount of questions that are pretty much freebies if you just study. There is readings in the course that have associated questions through out the reading using the platform it's on, which is marked as half participation and half by correct answers, but they're basically entirely lec material, and there's nothing on the assessments that aren't in lec. This course was als changed this year, both the midterms and final are in person now, and the assignment during the sem is an online video presentation type thing instead of an essay now
AST251+Prof Reid: This course was changed this year. Prior to this year this course had no midterms or final, it now has 2 midterms and a final, and participation marks and weekly homework for the rest of the grade. This course was generally really interesting to me. There's little technicality, very little math, and most things are just conceptual and data analysis (again, with very very little math, it's more about coming up with a descriptive analysis rather than a numeric one). You basically just learn methods of how we study planets, search for new ones, and search for life elsewhere in space. Prof Reid was rlly enjoyable to listen to, and a great prof. The only issue I had with this course is that a couple of the questions on the midterms have "pick the best option" type mcqs where there's multiple technically correct answers but one fits more, or like a couple seemingly ambiguous ones. But aside from that i'd say if you're interested in this kinda stuff, you'll like this course, I personally found it rlly enjoyable and interesting. Post final update: Final application questions were rlly ambiguous, messed me n a lotta other ppl too, lowk cooked my mark. Course was still enjoyable, and the midterms were good, but the final was a tad cooked
If anyone has any questions in general or abt any of this courses feel free to ask. Gl to all the incoming students, everyone waiting for acceptances, and everyone in here now suffering from exams. π
I need one more credit in winter so if anyone has good bird course suggestions lmk
I'm considering taking psy230 this year since the course seems really interesting, but I can't find anything on recent reviews on the class. The prof's (Amanda Sharples) rating seems to be BAD abt it though so if anyone's taken the course pls lmk how it went
I guess I'll preface this since I can only really add one flair, this will dip into my mental health and outlook on life a bit but nothing that serious. I'm mainly looking for suggestions for what options I could realistically do. This is a long post so there's a TLDR at the bottom just for ppl to give suggestions cus.. tbh I don't expect many people, if any at all to read through all of this.
For some context, I'm an 18 year old guy living in Toronto. I just finished my first year of uni in psychology, and my original intention was to go to med school SPECIFICALLY for psychiatry, but the reality of my academic abilities and the amount of time I'd have to sacrifice to make that happen has made that goal no longer worth it to me as much as I want to do it.
I have some other options but they all feel like they have quite narrow ceilings in terms of progression, salary, etc. And right now I'm just at a point where my mind is a clusterfuck of just not knowing where to go.
I'm gonna start dipping into my mental health here cus this is the only reason it's as big of an issue to me as it is. My mental health is generally.. pretty okay. Would I call it good? meh, but it's not terrible and def has been in worse states before. Nowadays it's generally neutral but I'll have a bad day every week or two where I'm just in my head constantly.
I'd also like to put forward the way I think since.. I think it's probably a lot different than most people. To me, life is short. I haven't been through anything (which also makes me feel like failures of mine, or falling behind, are so much less warranted than anyone else's. Most people around me have been through actual problems, issues, or trauma. The only thing I've ever been through has just been in my head, I have no excuses to be behind, but I am) but I feel so mentally exhausted, so.. (this is gonna sound odd but) old. To me by the time I turn like.. 40, I will have no energy left for life. This is honestly the main reason why I no longer want to do med school, here, under the best case, which is unlikely to happen, I'll finish residency when I'm 32. By then, I will be fully burnt out by school and residency, and then still have a shit ton of debt to pay off. In my mind I'd have no drive left to want to live life, or experience things. The things I want to experience now (travel, etc) aren't gonna be at all the same if I try doing them when I'm 35 and tired of life. I want to be able to make enough money within my 20s to at least be able to do something with my life, and I just don't know where to go. Furthermore, I have the type of mind where.. if I don't approve of myself (both in general or about something specific), I don't care who tells me otherwise, it will not change anything I think. Even if it's in regards to another person (e.g. I have a best friend, she is.. in my mind one of, if not the best thing to ever happen to my life. If I don't think I'm being good enough of a friend to her, regardless of what she tells me, I will not believe it until I've done enough to tell myself I'm being good enough of a friend.). I'd also like to clarify that isn't because I feel like I *need* to do it, it's out of want. But the same mindset applies to other things. In my mind, if I haven't succeeded enough, even if the world tells me I have, I won't believe it, this will come in later in my explanation.
My main mental health decline started when I was around 15-16, and I had admittedly neglected myself for a while. I gained self-awareness quite late, so up until then, I kinda just didn't really think much of taking care of myself. But when self-awareness hit me, it hit me hard, and I hate nothing but pure hatred for myself. I also didn't really have people (outside of family) that I felt valued me, I was nothing to anyone the second I stepped out of my house. During this time, all the hobbies that I had I completely lost interest in, which made it worse since later on I ended up also hating myself for essentially just.. becoming a boring person, and doing nothing with my life. My days were basically, go to school, come home, wallow in my self-hatred, do work, wallow some more, and then sleep. I got out of that phase after a couple years ish.
Then came uni admissions, mental health was alright but stressed up until here, then took a BAD downhill after I was rejected from the programs I initially wanted. I had just felt like I put my life of effort for the last 1-2 years into hoping for something and it not happening. I felt like I just.. wasn't good enough, never would be. This also caused the self-hatred issues from earlier to come back along with the new ones that were made by this. To make it all worse, I was surrounded by people who were better than me for every aspect of life, and had some people who were just.. better than me as a whole, and I just.. didn't get it. I couldn't understand why I tried so hard to be something, to get somewhere, and failed, and others could just.. do it without even seemingly trying half as much as I was. It took me.. a while to get over this, but eventually, I moved on.
Anyways, skip to now, the more I self-reflect the more I realize that none of the actual underlying emotions, thoughts or feelings I had toward myself from then left, they just laid dormant since they had no reason to resurface.
But now they do. I'm yet again in a position where nearly everyone around me is either, better than me, has something to show for their life, or has a clear plan. I have none. I'm nothing extraordinary at all, I have nothing to show for my life, and.. I have no plan. I don't know what I'm doing with my life right now, or where to turn to progress since the path I originally wanted just isn't what I want anymore. So every so often I'll just.. have a bad day and all I can think about is "what if I don't make it anywhere? and I watch the people around me progress while I just.. don't?", and that thought will consume my mind for the day, no matter how hard I try, unless I just.. take weed (which.. doesn't always help either), it won't leave my mind til at least the next day. I just have nothing to show for my life, in my mind I'm.. quite a boring human LMAO, all the interests I had I lost during my mental declines, and no matter how much I try to get back into them I just can't. I also just have nothing to show for my life, I've made nothing, I've done nothing, I've earned nothing.. and I don't even have a path in my mind to make it anywhere.
I'm also pretty hard on myself in general, but especially goal wise. Now, going back to focusing on career, med school isn't it for me anymore. I've always wanted to work in psych/mental health, but psychiatry isn't happening, I'm just not skilled enough to get into clin psych programs, psychotherapy programs are highly competitive and chances are I won't be able to get into them, social work is an option but.. there's def a ceiling in salary, and it's (unfortunately) not a high one at all considering the work. I have other options but they also all have the same issue, where there isn't much room for progression, and ceiling (relative to the start at least) isn't high either.
I'm open to giving up psych as a work space at this point, I just want any career path that opens up an opportunity to earn well. I just wanna make it in life, and be able to prove something to myself.
TLDR: I'm 18 living in Toronto. My original career path (bachelor in psych->med for psychiatry) just isn't it for me anymore, and I just want suggestions for where I can go career wise. I'm at a point of mental exhaustion where I'm open to literally anything that has area for progression, pays well, and isn't insanely competitive. (Obv, nothing is risk free, but just things that aren't as competitive as med school would be here). Thanks.
I'm considering taking psy230 this year since the course seems really interesting, but I can't find anything on recent reviews on the class. The prof's (Amanda Sharples) rating seems to be BAD abt it though so if anyone's taken the course pls lmk how it went
I'm considering taking psy230 this year since the course seems really interesting, but I can't find anything on recent reviews on the class. The prof's (Amanda Sharples) rating seems to be BAD abt it though so if anyone's taken the course pls lmk how it went
Reposting this since the incoming first years got enrollment soon
Note: This is gonna be a long post but it goes in depth abt my thoughts on each course and the profs. I also didn't take mat135 or 136 cus I don't need it for either of the majors (psych, neuro) i'm doing and am jus gonna do phy131 next year. So I don't have prof reviews, but from what i've heard abt the courses.. not the greatest experiences LMAO. the math department here is one of little mercy so
bio120: taught by prof. mahler and fredrickson. in my opinion, not very difficult, but the material does get boring for a lotta people. the readings can be tedious too. not because they're excessively that long always, but usually more so just cus it gets boring for people. it's largely just principles of evolution so.. if you can wrap your head around the mechanisms of evolution you're good. the later part of the course just becomes weird imo. not "difficult" per se, but just.. odd, as you move into stuff about like.. wind n stuff. also the midterms and exams have some questions that are so out of nowhere and random that you'll jus be confused. but they're all mcq so, it's not that bad. the labs are also pretty chill, but can also be boring to some people and the grading of lab assignments highly depends on your TA. There's no actual lab reports, but there are in class labs which are based on reading lab manual material but it's also open book so it's not bad at all, but it is writing based which is why it's based on TA a lot.
\\\\\\\\-Prof Mahler: imo, great guy. explained things rlly well, and the structuring of his slides was rlly nice in sectioning/organizing information throughout, and in sectioning relevant information together.
\\\\\\\\-Prof Fredrickson: had the personality and energy to teach, and has been teaching this course forever. but imo Mahler explained things better. her slides were also structured worse so there's a lot of times where I just got confused by what information connected with what. this may have just been a me thing but in general I, and a good amount of my friends agree that Mahler's structure was better. but not a bad prof by any means, she still explained things pretty well, you just needa connect some things on your own sometimes which isn't rlly difficult in this course since it's not a technical course.
chm135: I was taught by Profs Deon, Wilson and Seferos (RIP π). In my opinion, this course's difficulty will be largely based on how well you can absorb information based from each prof's style of teaching. The material isn't especially difficult in my opinion, but that may largely be since I took gr12 physics and chem, so it was a lot of similar material just expanded a bit. If you haven't taken those, you probably will find it somewhat difficult. There's 3 sections to the course (light+law 1 thermodynamics, kinetics+acid/base chem, and law 2+3 of thermodynamics+redox chem) and none of them (except week 1 which is just.. basic chem principles. and some overlap with kinetics and thermodynamics law 3) really add up with each other much, they're kinda all their own separate thing. Labs were pretty good imo. You have a lab partner through the sem who you work on the labs with together, so if you get along with them well you'll find the labs pretty chill. My TA was also a pretty chill guy so it worked out well for me. Lab reports are tedious though, they make you use excel to organize info and make graphs, which isn't difficult, and they provide step by step guides on how to do it for every lab, but it is rlly time consuming for a few of the labs.
\\\\-Prof Deon: Imo the best prof in that course out of the 3 I had. Explained things really well and her structuring of material was rlly intuitive and made the flow of information understandable. She also answered questions really well.
\\\\-Prof Wilson: Def the most enthusiastic of the 3, you can tell the guys doing what he loves. But his explanations of concepts just weren't my type, and his slides were confusingly structured to me. But that's likely a personal me thing cus ik a lotta my friends had no issues with his teaching
\\\\-Prof Seferos: Wont comment much, taught decent, you could tell he was a nice person, just didn't have much energy, (assuming now that he's passed.. due to whatever it was he was going through). Nothing but respect for the guy, Rest in Peace π
Bio130+Prof Yip: Listen, and listen fucking close. Take this course with Yip. Even if you can't make enrollment into his section (6-9pm), go to his lectures if you can, both sections have the exact same material and assessments. This guy, is my fkin goat. He explains things amazingly. Once he goes through a multi-slide process with multiple parts and mechanisms, he'll do a summary of it, explaining the whole process and parts and mechanisms together. Things that may be confusing for students he will literally word for word tell you what to write in your notes. He will tell you things that students often forget or miss and tell you to note them down so you don't get confused abt stuff. This guy is, either my top 1 or top 2 prof of this year. I only went to one lecture (the first one) in the morning section so I can't comment on how it is personally, but every one of my friends that usually went to the morning ones and then went to Yip's one in the evening absolutely agreed he was way better, not cus the morning profs were bad necessarily, but just cus he is that good. He's chill, funny, engaging, literally everything you could ask for from a prof. So far as every week he'll survey the class if his pace is okay and adjust his pace accordingly. As far as the material goes, it can be a lot for some people but it isn't unbearable, it's largely process based so you can kinda string information together in your head. More difficult than bio120 but also a lot more interesting. There also isn't \*really\* readings in it, the textbook material is basically just the lecture material with extra information you won't be tested on aside from the weekly textbook quizzes. There's nothing on the midterm or exam from the textbook that wasn't in lecture. Labs in this course are also a lot more interesting, and interactive. Also no lab reports, just lab quizzes and assignments which weren't bad at all if you just read the lab manual bfr.
Chm136: I was taught by Prof. Luska and Chin. Most people find this more difficult than 135. I personally found this easier since all the information throughout the entire course works together. It's all one big flow of information. This course (and tbh all courses, but this one esp) you need to learn to learn through understanding how things happen and not just memorizing that they do. Most people, don't realize they learn through just tryna memorize the stuff that happens and not actually get it, if you haven't changed that til now, you'll needa start changing it here. Orgo chem def gets worse from here but this course in particular in my opinion is not all that bad if you are able to understand different ways of drawing compounds, and electron movement.
\\\\-Prof. Luska: This is the guy I have up in my top 2 with Yip. This guy is also the goat. Explains things very well and thoroughly, answers questions amazingly. Genuinely made this course so much easier than it would've been with a prof that explained things less. He's enthusiastic, and engaging as well, he made listening to orgo chem both digestible and not boring somehow. Actual goat along with Yip
\\\\-Prof. Chin: Not bad, but a very noticeable drop from Luska just cus of how thorough he was. He also messed up explaining a couple things in class but corrected himself the next week. He did still explain things thoroughly but also got sidetracked sometimes on the small sections in the slides where they explain how the concept taught is lol. You can tell this guy also has a passion for what he does, and still is a decent prof, we just got spoiled by having Luska for 2/3 of the sem lol.
Psy100+Prof Whissel: I took this class with Prof. Whissel. His section and Denton's section are completely separate, and have their own material and assessments. I'll go in depth on his section and explain what I know of Denton's. Psych as a subject entirely is something you will find boring if you don't like it or aren't interested in it. As someone that is interested in it though, I found this course not bad at all, though ik this isn't the general consensus. Psych can be counterintuitive to a lotta people, and may just seem abstract, so many people find this course difficult, a large part of the reason I didn't is cus of 1. my interest in it and 2. my past experience in it. Prof Whissel is right below Yip and Luska for my profs this year. Him and Yip made 3 hour lectures not get boring or tiring somehow, he's very engaging, and explains things really well. Genuinely a great guy too.
\\\\-Comparing the two sections: Basically the main difference (aside from the profs) is the grade breakdown. In whissel's section the breakdown is entirely assessments+4% SONA (two 25% midterms, and a 46% final+4% SONA participation). I don't know what denton's breakdown is, but they have other things and also have readings which are included in the assessments. Whissel's section has no readings at all, all material that's tested is in lecture. And in my opinion, even tho 96% of your grade being tests sounds really intimidating, so long as you're interested in psych and study the lecs well, the tests in whissel's section aren't that difficult. From what I've heard of denton (again, not personal experience so I can't confirm but this is jus what I've heard), she's not a bad lecturer at all, but gets sidetracked a lot, and the readings can get pretty long and tedious, and you don't have a choice but to do them cus they're testable. Personally, I loved whissel and if you're actually interested in learning psych, I'd say take his class.
Elective Review
Before I start I'd like to preface to incoming students, the following are all bird courses. But, a bird course is NOT a \*free\* 90, it's a course where if you go to lecs, do readings (if there are any), and study properly, you can expect a pretty decent chance of getting an 80-85+.
ENV100+Prof. Appolloni: Really easy course. Prof. Appolloni is def the most enjoyable prof I had. Guy was funny as hell, engaging, and kept the course interesting despite it being really basic. The course assessments are writing based, so marking depends on TA. The readings are pretty short but you do NEED to do them. And you kinda needa go to lectures cus the slides themselves don't have much explanations on them, but the readings can also cover for that if you miss the lec anyways. Also a lot of opportunities for free marks are given here, between an in class participation thing, tutorial attendance, and a couple other stuff. Not at all hard to get high marks 85+ in this course
HPS110+Profs. Mark and Marga: This course is basically a historical, surface level social psych course. Goes over past developments in social psych, why they happened, how they happened, etc. Overall in my opinion as someone who is interested in psych, a very interesting course. There are readings, and assessments are also writing based, but you get a lot of free marks from just going to tutorial. All the TAs are rlly good from what i've heard too. Because of it being writing based, it's harder to get like an 85-90+ in this course than in env100, but getting above an 80 is pretty doable, after that it's kinda just specifics in writing.
NOTE: Both in HPS110 and Env100, they give a full question bank before all assessments, including the final. The bank has all the possible questions that could be asked in the upcoming assessment, which helps a LOT.
Imm250+Profs Buechler, Gommerman and Watts: This course is technical but it's an intro course and very process based. So if you're able to piece together information into a process the entire course is pre much that. It's not very difficult and imo all the profs explain things in an understandable way. There's an assignment during the term which is marked by a TA so that highly depends on your TA, but the assessments aren't all that difficult and honestly have a good amount of questions that are pretty much freebies if you just study. There is readings in the course that have associated questions through out the reading using the platform it's on, which is marked as half participation and half by correct answers, but they're basically entirely lec material, and there's nothing on the assessments that aren't in lec. This course was als changed this year, both the midterms and final are in person now, and the assignment during the sem is an online video presentation type thing instead of an essay now
AST251+Prof Reid: This course was changed this year. Prior to this year this course had no midterms or final, it now has 2 midterms and a final, and participation marks and weekly homework for the rest of the grade. This course was generally really interesting to me. There's little technicality, very little math, and most things are just conceptual and data analysis (again, with very very little math, it's more about coming up with a descriptive analysis rather than a numeric one). You basically just learn methods of how we study planets, search for new ones, and search for life elsewhere in space. Prof Reid was rlly enjoyable to listen to, and a great prof. The only issue I had with this course is that a couple of the questions on the midterms have "pick the best option" type mcqs where there's multiple technically correct answers but one fits more, or like a couple seemingly ambiguous ones. But aside from that i'd say if you're interested in this kinda stuff, you'll like this course, I personally found it rlly enjoyable and interesting. Post final update: Final application questions were rlly ambiguous, messed me n a lotta other ppl too, lowk cooked my mark. Course was still enjoyable, and the midterms were good, but the final was a tad cooked
If anyone has any questions in general or abt any of this courses feel free to ask. Gl to all the incoming students, everyone waiting for acceptances, and everyone in here now suffering. π
Reposting this since the incoming first years got enrollment soon
Note: This is gonna be a long post but it goes in depth abt my thoughts on each course and the profs. I also didn't take mat135 or 136 cus I don't need it for either of the majors (psych, neuro) i'm doing and am jus gonna do phy131 next year. So I don't have prof reviews, but from what i've heard.. not the greatest experiences LMAO. the math department here is one of little mercy so
bio120: taught by prof. mahler and fredrickson. in my opinion, not very difficult, but the material does get boring for a lotta people. the readings can be tedious too. not because they're excessively that long always, but usually more so just cus it gets boring for people. it's largely just principles of evolution so.. if you can wrap your head around the mechanisms of evolution you're good. the later part of the course just becomes weird imo. not "difficult" per se, but just.. odd, as you move into stuff about like.. wind n stuff. also the midterms and exams have some questions that are so out of nowhere and random that you'll jus be confused. but they're all mcq so, it's not that bad. the labs are also pretty chill, but can also be boring to some people and the grading of lab assignments highly depends on your TA. There's no actual lab reports, but there are in class labs which are based on reading lab manual material but it's also open book so it's not bad at all, but it is writing based which is why it's based on TA a lot.
\\\\-Prof Mahler: imo, great guy. explained things rlly well, and the structuring of his slides was rlly nice in sectioning/organizing information throughout, and in sectioning relevant information together.
\\\\-Prof Fredrickson: had the personality and energy to teach, and has been teaching this course forever. but imo Mahler explained things better. her slides were also structured worse so there's a lot of times where I just got confused by what information connected with what. this may have just been a me thing but in general I, and a good amount of my friends agree that Mahler's structure was better. but not a bad prof by any means, she still explained things pretty well, you just needa connect some things on your own sometimes which isn't rlly difficult in this course since it's not a technical course.
chm135: I was taught by Profs Deon, Wilson and Seferos (RIP π). In my opinion, this course's difficulty will be largely based on how well you can absorb information based from each prof's style of teaching. The material isn't especially difficult in my opinion, but that may largely be since I took gr12 physics and chem, so it was a lot of similar material just expanded a bit. If you haven't taken those, you probably will find it somewhat difficult. There's 3 sections to the course (light+law 1 thermodynamics, kinetics+acid/base chem, and law 2+3 of thermodynamics+redox chem) and none of them (except week 1 which is just.. basic chem principles. and some overlap with kinetics and thermodynamics law 3) really add up with each other much, they're kinda all their own separate thing. Labs were pretty good imo. You have a lab partner through the sem who you work on the labs with together, so if you get along with them well you'll find the labs pretty chill. My TA was also a pretty chill guy so it worked out well for me. Lab reports are tedious though, they make you use excel to organize info and make graphs, which isn't difficult, and they provide step by step guides on how to do it for every lab, but it is rlly time consuming for a few of the labs.
\\-Prof Deon: Imo the best prof in that course out of the 3 I had. Explained things really well and her structuring of material was rlly intuitive and made the flow of information understandable. She also answered questions really well.
\\-Prof Wilson: Def the most enthusiastic of the 3, you can tell the guys doing what he loves. But his explanations of concepts just weren't my type, and his slides were confusingly structured to me. But that's likely a personal me thing cus ik a lotta my friends had no issues with his teaching
\\-Prof Seferos: Wont comment much, taught decent, you could tell he was a nice person, just didn't have much energy, (assuming now that he's passed.. due to whatever it was he was going through). Nothing but respect for the guy, Rest in Peace π
Bio130+Prof Yip: Listen, and listen fucking close. Take this course with Yip. Even if you can't make enrollment into his section (6-9pm), go to his lectures if you can, both sections have the exact same material and assessments. This guy, is my fkin goat. He explains things amazingly. Once he goes through a multi-slide process with multiple parts and mechanisms, he'll do a summary of it, explaining the whole process and parts and mechanisms together. Things that may be confusing for students he will literally word for word tell you what to write in your notes. He will tell you things that students often forget or miss and tell you to note them down so you don't get confused abt stuff. This guy is, either my top 1 or top 2 prof of this year. I only went to one lecture (the first one) in the morning section so I can't comment on how it is personally, but every one of my friends that usually went to the morning ones and then went to Yip's one in the evening absolutely agreed he was way better, not cus the morning profs were bad necessarily, but just cus he is that good. He's chill, funny, engaging, literally everything you could ask for from a prof. So far as every week he'll survey the class if his pace is okay and adjust his pace accordingly. As far as the material goes, it can be a lot for some people but it isn't unbearable, it's largely process based so you can kinda string information together in your head. More difficult than bio120 but also a lot more interesting. There also isn't *really* readings in it, the textbook material is basically just the lecture material with extra information you won't be tested on aside from the weekly textbook quizzes. There's nothing on the midterm or exam from the textbook that wasn't in lecture. Labs in this course are also a lot more interesting, and interactive. Also no lab reports, just lab quizzes and assignments which weren't bad at all if you just read the lab manual bfr.
Chm136: I was taught by Prof. Luska and Chin. Most people find this more difficult than 135. I personally found this easier since all the information throughout the entire course works together. It's all one big flow of information. This course (and tbh all courses, but this one esp) you need to learn to learn through understanding how things happen and not just memorizing that they do. Most people, don't realize they learn through just tryna memorize the stuff that happens and not actually get it, if you haven't changed that til now, you'll needa start changing it here. Orgo chem def gets worse from here but this course in particular in my opinion is not all that bad if you are able to understand different ways of drawing compounds, and electron movement.
\\-Prof. Luska: This is the guy I have up in my top 2 with Yip. This guy is also the goat. Explains things very well and thoroughly, answers questions amazingly. Genuinely made this course so much easier than it would've been with a prof that explained things less. He's enthusiastic, and engaging as well, he made listening to orgo chem both digestible and not boring somehow. Actual goat along with Yip
\\-Prof. Chin: Not bad, but a very noticeable drop from Luska just cus of how thorough he was. He also messed up explaining a couple things in class but corrected himself the next week. He did still explain things thoroughly but also got sidetracked sometimes on the small sections in the slides where they explain how the concept taught is lol. You can tell this guy also has a passion for what he does, and still is a decent prof, we just got spoiled by having Luska for 2/3 of the sem lol.
Psy100+Prof Whissel: I took this class with Prof. Whissel. His section and Denton's section are completely separate, and have their own material and assessments. I'll go in depth on his section and explain what I know of Denton's. Psych as a subject entirely is something you will find boring if you don't like it or aren't interested in it. As someone that is interested in it though, I found this course not bad at all, though ik this isn't the general consensus. Psych can be counterintuitive to a lotta people, and may just seem abstract, so many people find this course difficult, a large part of the reason I didn't is cus of 1. my interest in it and 2. my past experience in it. Prof Whissel is right below Yip and Luska for my profs this year. Him and Yip made 3 hour lectures not get boring or tiring somehow, he's very engaging, and explains things really well. Genuinely a great guy too.
\\-Comparing the two sections: Basically the main difference (aside from the profs) is the grade breakdown. In whissel's section the breakdown is entirely assessments+4% SONA (two 25% midterms, and a 46% final+4% SONA participation). I don't know what denton's breakdown is, but they have other things and also have readings which are included in the assessments. Whissel's section has no readings at all, all material that's tested is in lecture. And in my opinion, even tho 96% of your grade being tests sounds really intimidating, so long as you're interested in psych and study the lecs well, the tests in whissel's section aren't that difficult. From what I've heard of denton (again, not personal experience so I can't confirm but this is jus what I've heard), she's not a bad lecturer at all, but gets sidetracked a lot, and the readings can get pretty long and tedious, and you don't have a choice but to do them cus they're testable. Personally, I loved whissel and if you're actually interested in learning psych, I'd say take his class.
Elective Review
Before I start I'd like to preface to incoming students, the following are all bird courses. But, a bird course is NOT a *free* 90, it's a course where if you go to lecs, do readings (if there are any), and study properly, you can expect a pretty decent chance of getting an 80-85+.
ENV100+Prof. Appolloni: Really easy course. Prof. Appolloni is def the most enjoyable prof I had. Guy was funny as hell, engaging, and kept the course interesting despite it being really basic. The course assessments are writing based, so marking depends on TA. The readings are pretty short but you do NEED to do them. And you kinda needa go to lectures cus the slides themselves don't have much explanations on them, but the readings can also cover for that if you miss the lec anyways. Also a lot of opportunities for free marks are given here, between an in class participation thing, tutorial attendance, and a couple other stuff. Not at all hard to get high marks 85+ in this course
HPS110+Profs. Mark and Marga: This course is basically a historical, surface level social psych course. Goes over past developments in social psych, why they happened, how they happened, etc. Overall in my opinion as someone who is interested in psych, a very interesting course. There are readings, and assessments are also writing based, but you get a lot of free marks from just going to tutorial. All the TAs are rlly good from what i've heard too. Because of it being writing based, it's harder to get like an 85-90+ in this course than in env100, but getting above an 80 is pretty doable, after that it's kinda just specifics in writing.
NOTE: Both in HPS110 and Env100, they give a full question bank before all assessments, including the final. The bank has all the possible questions that could be asked in the upcoming assessment, which helps a LOT.
Imm250+Profs Buechler, Gommerman and Watts: This course is technical but it's an intro course and very process based. So if you're able to piece together information into a process the entire course has. It's not very difficult and imo all the profs explain things in an understandable way. There's an assignment during the term which is marked by a TA so that highly depends on your TA, but the assessments aren't all that difficult and honestly have a good amount of questions that are pretty much freebies if you just study. There is readings in the course that have associated questions through out the reading using the platform it's on, which is marked as half participation and half by correct answers, but they're basically entirely lec material, and there's nothing on the assessments that aren't in lec. This course was als changed this year, both the midterms and final are in person now, and the assignment during the sem is an online video presentation type thing instead of an essay now
AST251+Prof Reid: This course was changed this year. Prior to this year this course had no midterms or final, it now has 2 midterms and a final, and participation marks and weekly homework for the rest of the grade. This course was generally really interesting to me. There's little technicality, very little math, and most things are just conceptual and data analysis (again, with very very little math, it's more about coming up with a descriptive analysis rather than a numeric one). You basically just learn methods of how we study planets, search for new ones, and search for life elsewhere in space. Prof Reid was rlly enjoyable to listen to, and a great prof. The only issue I had with this course is that a couple of the questions on the midterms have "pick the best option" type mcqs where there's multiple technically correct answers but one fits more, or like a couple seemingly ambiguous ones. But aside from that i'd say if you're interested in this kinda stuff, you'll like this course, I personally found it rlly enjoyable and interesting. Post final update: Final application questions were rlly ambiguous, messed me n a lotta other ppl too, lowk cooked my mark. Course was still enjoyable, and the midterms were good, but the final was a tad cooked
If anyone has any questions in general or abt any of this courses feel free to ask. Gl to all the incoming students, everyone waiting for acceptances, and everyone in here now suffering. π
long story short, I've just finished first year and just don't really think med is for me anymore. I have my reasons as to why which I won't get into here cus this is something i've made my mind up on.
My issue now is.. I don't know where to go school and career wise. rn i'm life sci double majoring in psych and neurosci.
psych is what i'm actually interested in but.. realistically trying to work in psych is either basically just as, if not more competitive than med, or often doesn't end up paying very well as a career of you don't get into the competitive stuff, so there isn't that
I've considered trying to switch to nursing and then going to PA (physician assistant) or AA (anesthesia assistant) school later on, but both of those from what i've heard are also competitive asf.
like I just don't know where to go.. nothing feels even remotely safe, and it's genuinely throwing me into a state of just pure mental chaos and conflict.
ik this puts me outside of premed but, I couldn't think of anywhere else to ask so, if anyone has advice or career path suggestions pls lmk, I'm pretty open to things. I'm good both with suggestions that require me to finish this degree and do more after, or ones that require me to switch programs for
p.s: I'd like to clarify a bit cus I do know the post kinda gives this notion of me thinking smth "risk free" exists. I get that it doesn't I just meant smth that's less risky than like.. med, or anything that's competitive to the extent that the likelihood of me not getting in is far, far more likely than getting in
title. I'm considering switching paths from med to nursing next year and then attending PA or AA (anesthesia assistant) school after. how hard is it to get into PA school here? (or AA school if anyone has info abt that)
I'm considering applying for it after I graduate, but I can't find much info about what I'd need to be a good candidate. Like avg admission grades, ecs, etc. if anyone has any info I'd rlly appreciate it
I just finished first year w a 3.73 cgpa so.. it's NOT lookin good. give me literally any of the study tips you got
k so.. I'll break this into sections, but long story short I just want opinions or advice, I won't fully explain everything but, I'll just give the gist of it.
Context: Med (psychiatry specifically) and clinical psych are the literal 2 only things I actually want to do in life and actually have a passion for. I'm just not sure if it's worth pursuing either of them anymore, which I'll explain next.
Academically: I just finished first year n.. well the gpa isn't looking that great. First sem I ended w a 3.78, this sem will be lower. I've only gotten 2 grades back which were an 88 in ochem n 73 in an elective π so, it's really lookin bad rn. Also, I'm just not that smart. My entire academic career has always been in an intermediate spot where I can't call it bad but it's not good enough for anything at the top. There's been improvement but.. marginally. Gr11 I was sat in the mid 80s, gr12 through.. torturous studying and a genuinely borderline depressive mental, I managed to push my avg into the low 90s. I just don't think I can do that in uni, and especially not consistently do that for the next 3 years straight since I needa recover from my 73 this sem+get really good ecs+cook literal perfection on the mcat, interviews, n other stuff. I got the drive, I just don't think I have the ability or intelligence to be able to do that.
Personally: Like I mentioned at the beginning, those two things are the literal only 2 things I actually have a passion to want to do in life. But thinking about it now, it's just.. not worth that many years of my life to do. Like if by some fuckin miracle I get into med right after my undergrad, and for the hypothetical let's say residency takes 2 years, I don't get to start an actual life until i'm like.. 28-30. I'm not gonna get into why or how exactly I look at time or life (cus the typical response to ppl hearing me say that is "oh well 30 just sounds old you have time"), cus it's.. complex, and would make this post wayyy too long and complicated. Anyways, it just doesn't seem worth 10 years at minimum which is still IF I SOMEHOW get into med right after my undergrad which.. as I mentioned bfr, I highly doubt. I also have adhd so my motivation even on my current work is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, and this entire conflict as a whole just makes it sm harder to be motivated.
Clin Psych as an alternative: This path ain even much easier at all, clin psych programs are so fkin competitive atp, and I'd still needa spend at least a couple years doing research n stuff, at which point like.. it's no diff than med both in terms of my chances of getting in in the first place and in terms of the years it'd take. The only other possible paths is getting an MA to get to become a psych associate, which, again, is likely competitive and my chances are likely not high.
I just don't rlly know what to do at this point of my life cus no matter what turn I take I either get to do the thing I wanna do and then regret spending that many years in school n shit, or I do something else that wouldn't require such an extended path and then give up dreams I had. I can't count the amount of days i've sat tryna decide what would be best n just never came up with anything, neither feels more worth it than the other, and the issue is very few other degrees that aren't as extended are as highly employable, especially w AI n shit being used by companies sm more. there's just no winning anywhere I turn
like the title said this post is dumb cus ik one grade won't ruin anything. but I just finished first year n got a 73 on one of my classes. it was a fkin elective too cus it was just for final that was so ambiguous. ik it won't fuck me over but like.. I just feel so fucked having to recover from it esp since my first sem gpa was alrd only 3.78, so I jus feel like i've made my job so much fkin harder so my moral is cooked. the literal only hope is that like ik im confident in all my other finals aside from that and alrd had much higher grades in those, but my cgpa is so fucked for this sem even with those so I just feel so cooked.
anyways that's all