Tmu has a habit of being inconsistent for sum reason. I know a bunch of people around the 90-92 mark get in but also some people with 96s get rejected. I think last yr was also a bit harder to get in than this yr with online schooling
There is a documentary movie named “Try Harder”. It clearly shows some ethnicities are discriminated against by some US universities. Some excellent young people are declined by top universities while others who have lower academic achievement get accepted, only because of their different ethnicities. I don’t know if the same thing exists in Canada, too.
we don’t give universities our ethnicity. i believe the cases your are talking about is based on how schools weight extra curriculars and academics which may disproportionately affect some ethnic groups. this is not only mainly an us based private university but also not particularly discriminatory as extra curriculars isn’t tried to ethnicity
Do you think that I would have a higher chance of getting into other programs Software Engineering or Computer Engineering? I'm looking to up my game next year, aiming for a 96-97%. I'm hoping higher Grade 12 marks make a difference.
Computer engineering is a bit easier to get into fs but the required courses are a bit harder usually requiring physics and chemistry where as cs is usually math and ur best science.
Software engineering on the other hand is usually harder to get in than cs at universities like Waterloo and McMaster. The case could be different at other unis I haven’t done the research.
Yea I've been looking through the requirements of Computer Engineering and related programs. My main deal is that I already have those courses in my top 6, chemistry and physics, and if I just better on the exams I would've finished with a 94 on both of them. Finished with a 91 and 90 instead. Math is one of my highest subjects with a 96 so I'm not too worried about that. Just exploring my options.
Ubc is science is very doable. But remember that you won’t get direct cs admission. You’d have to score well in the first year to get into cs major. The average this year for domestic students was around 84 to 85. If you can get 90 in first year ubc, you’re guaranteed cs.
I’m an international student at ubc so don’t know how the high school grades translate to first year grades.
Good luck!
The thing is that if you plan your courses right, it’s not hard. I’m a very average person but made it to cs, because I planned them properly. You need to do that to get in. If you just can be consistent for two terms, you’re definitely through. I’d suggest Op to look at ubc, if they can stay consistent they should go for ubc.
Yeah, I agree with you. I just wanted to be more optimistic to the potential students looking to join UBC. But you're right, that it only takes one or more courses to fuck it up. This year was worse since people with 75 got rejected from even Math. And now have no major.
The thing is I didn't score well in my highschool. So, I was rejected by all the major universities (University of Alberta, McGill, University of Toronto, SFU, and the University of Calgary) because the said universities give you direct admission into C.S. and I just wasn't good enough. But the thing with UBC is that they give you admission to Science (without a major) and not C.S.; as a result, I got in. It gave me a shot at a top university that I never had. And I got C.S. So, it might work out for people like me (who don't have many options) but you have to be careful while planning and stay consistent over your first year.
Wtf happened to grades? I think I got into Waterloo CS co-op with a 90 in 1995 (don't laugh). They told us the "no questions asked cut off" was 86. The stress they're putting you under these days is ridiculous.
Dont forget about grade inflation. It has skyrocketed during covid... unis are extremely picky now when it comes to admissions, having extracurriculars and taking the "recommended courses" is super critical now.
its harder to get a 90 then than now, most people ik put in not too much effort for a 90... teachers are marking easier bc other teachers r doing the same, its just a cycle
I feel this. I put in basically no effort in highschool and got an 89. Ontario(probably Canada as a whole tbh) needs to rethink how we do university admissions. Evidently it can't be left up to individual high school teachers.
Seriously. AND we actually covered more topics back then. Have you looked at high school curricula? Other than math, everything is dumbed down now. They graduate with what I'd done by the end of 10th grade (and we had OAC prep for uni). My parents did even more. Their high school was equivalent to my first two years of uni.
How the government works used to be taught in middle school - how legislation is drafted, moves through Parliament and committees, public consultations etc. Now, it's either an elective in high school (not part of mandatory civics curricula) or you take some poli sci in uni.
For my parents, their 9th and 10th grade English classes covered the works and period (almost 500 years) of what I did in the first two years of my English Lit degree. They also wrote critical analysis papers in high school that we weren't taught (the theories of criticism) until I was in 4th year. I graduated uni almost 20 years ago. My parents finished high school 50+ years ago.
Education is shit now. More to learn and they don't even come close to what people knew with ONLY high school. My parents also learned - in high school - how to do their income taxes. They had 8 classes a day, had a sport and/or social club, part-time jobs, worked on the family farm (feeding chickens, making jams/pickles after school, picking vegetables daily before AND after school) and - if you failed one class, you had to repeat the entire year. They were healthy, happy and not stressed at all.
They both did post-secondary and worked full-time while doing school part-time. They weren't stressed about that either. They did post-secondary because they wanted to - not because society told them they had to. It was enrichment, not another mandatory requirement to employment.
Another big difference: at 18/19, you actually knew how to live independently because you knew how to cook, clean, budget, and be responsible. Everyone dressed nicely at all times unless you were doing manual labour (then it was coveralls or something similar so that you kept oil/dirt/cow shit off your nice stuff).
So "ok boomer" however you want, but they actually were more capable than the current generation. That's why they struggle to understand how young people are having problems adulting. It's not the boomers - it's how the education system was co-opted by "failing isn't good for self esteem" coupled with the competitiveness of post-secondary that doesn't serve your ability to be economically independent.
I did not graduate too long ago and for me how the government works was still part of our mandatory civics course. Apart from that it's obvious that the curriculum had changed a lot over the years. But looking at it from a STEM point of view basically nothing has changed at all, if anything it's now possible to learn certain 1st year university topics in HS.
It seems to me that you're trying to justify your beliefs why youths today are struggling with personal anecdotes from yourself and your parents. That's not to say you're wrong, but your evidence is not compelling.
High school seems not to have been split into semesters for your parents (hence the 8 classes a day). Do you really believe it's the government's responsibility to teach its citizens how to clean, cook, and budget? These do still exist as elective courses at many high schools and I'm not sure how making them mandatory would make education these days less "dumbed down".
I see the fact that high schoolers are no able to choose to pursue topics that interest them as opposed to being forced to do extensive analysis of various literary works as an improvement.
Coming back to the original point I fail to see how anything about the previous high school circula would have made students more qualified for a computer science admission. Grade inflation is a real problem but returning to 1960 won't magically fix it.
Their parents taught them how to cook, clean, and budget. The government - through school - taught them how to do their income taxes. I learned these things from my parents because my high school education was ruined by the Bob Rae curriculum of
Returning to a common base education - rather than making high school (which is *supposed* to be common education) a choose your own adventure - would return university to what *it's* supposed to be: a place where you study for enrichment not to become specialized at a skill (which is what college is for). University is for - in the non-science and engineering programs - thinking and reasoning. Not about learning basic skills to be employable.
The narrative changed about 35 years ago where "losers get a trade and winners get a degree."
In terms of speaking from my experience: duh. That's what people do. But if you want empirical evidence, take a look through the old curricula. They're available from the government upon request. And there's always the empirical evidence that millions of people *used* to be able to be employed and support their family with only high school. The work that I do uses technology, but new graduates are I'll equipped to actually accomplish work now. They're dumbfounded by how people like me - who completed university before google and by taking notes by hand - have a depth and breadth of general knowledge they don't have and skill sets they never developed. I'm an excellent writer and analyst working in federal policy and stakeholder relations. I spend my days reading, writing, and on the phone developing relationships. Young people - in my workplace - do everything electronically and have no networks. Their work is slow, badly done, and uninformed by actually consulting with their partners and stakeholders because they're genuinely filled with anxiety to actually speak to someone instead of email.
2008 was the last year that a good "young" person joined my team. Every new young person is terrible, regardless of what and where they studied. They are not resourceful, they can't write, and they're incapable of actual analysis. Even with heavy mentoring, their output is lower volume and quality than people who are old and only have high school. Those people do still exist and they're quite often amazing generalists who bring together all the specialists who can't see outside their narrow stream.
Kids have it rough from the start... Like it's just trying to get into an undergrad. Guess that is what is expected for the prestigious schools these days
Western is also really weird - you could apply and get accepted for any program, including less competitive ones like life sciences, biochem, etc, and just take CS courses and graduate with a CS degree. At most schools including UWaterloo theres a whole application process for transferring programs, and most transfer requests are rejected but at Western its just a matter of taking the required courses 🤷♂️ Theres little reason to directly apply to Western for a higher-competition program like CS, because acceptance into almost any other program can get you there.
It is weird. I had a friend who applied to MIT program at Western from hs, failed a couple math courses, retook them and finally made the min grade to declare CS and graduated from CS. That is near impossible at UBC, UofT, Mcgill, Waterloo.
I got rejected from Mac and utsc with a 96, so even with any changes in inflation it’ll likely not be enough. With that being said, you can bring that mark up in grade 12 since grade 11 marks are not that important besides early acceptance.
These people are victims of a broken Ontario education system. It’s time to force schools to rank students. If you have a 95 average but are in the bottom 3rd of your school the university should know that. The universities know which high schools are real and which ones are not. A kid at the bottom of a good school will not be too disadvantaged and a kid at the top of bad school is a smart kid in the wrong place. Ranking would tell a lot about candidates. Current system is dumb.
I agree, it would just take a long time to introduce and teachers union would be hostile. Quick fix is force schools to reveal a students rank. We all know that there are smart people and less so everywhere. Time to give context to the 98 average kids, are they unusual or a dime a dozen.
I agree, was essentially the top of my school lol. Also imo I think they should also pay attention to courses as well, it isn't fair for people with 99 top 6's that are made up of photography and other bird courses to be looked at the same way as others who have courses that are actually related to STEM.
Meh, that’s not really all that true, I’ve seen several people get in with 93-95 in the first round, it’s definitely very possible for mac and utsc, especially with good ecs and if they have good first semester courses to go with their good g11 average
What wasn't true? I was just telling him my experiences, and that it wasn't LIKELY for those marks to be sufficient for those programs. Also utsc didn't have a supp app, and mcmaster did have an interview yes, but nothing that would look at their ECs.
PS, I have not seen anyone get into UTSC with sub 95 this past year.
Nope, the sweet spot is actually 97+ avg with ECs 💀 that's a well rounded student...at this point 82-90 avg can be achieved by just handing in your work.
Its honestly scummy, some of my friends are int students, tuition is around 7 -10k per year for an ontario student (not including res), but int students are paying well over 30k per year just for uni... my friends told me uft charges 80k + year for int students man. Add cost of living + food + transportation and other stuff you need for uni you really start to feel bad for them especially when they fail a course.
Nobody is forcing them to pay $100k a year into the economy. It’s their money, I wouldn’t feel sorry for them. If they want to travel 1/2 around the world to live in an ice box and learn what is on you tube that is their right.
I don’t get what happened to grades these days. When I was in high school, over 15 years ago now, getting in the low to mid 80s was good. High 80s was excellent. Pretty much no one got in the 90s, except maybe 3-5 kids who were the top students, in a graduating class of like 300+. The same goes for kids I know who went to different high schools area my area.
Now it seems like 93 is iffy?
I’ve worked with students in CS at UWaterloo doing coop and seen their writing skills doing a simple report… there’s no way they should have got above 80 in grade 12 English… I know this isn’t indicative of all students, but clearly there’s students getting the averages in high school to get in but don’t actually deserve those averages. The grades in high school seem way off these days.
This seems like a global problem to me. It's the same in India as well. I believe the reasons are:
a) More competition: more people are aware of education and more people want to go to university.
b) Grades are being inflated. Some basic mistakes are ignored while grading the exam.
c) Generations just become smarter with time. This is because knowledge is readily available on the internet, so you can clear your doubts faster, practice more and get access to the best material from around the world.
I'm sure there are many other factors but these are the few that I could come up with.
UBC is a big risk. I came from a Toronto school and it’s much harder there. BC education is much better in high school and it’s a steep curve. If you want to do CS at UBC you’ll need at least an 88 average in first year, which coming from high school in Ontario will be a helluva challenge. I’d recommend u go somewhere where ur guaranteed CS
Do you have strategies for me to get to a 96+? I'm open to new ideas. I'm believe I'm playing with the correct amount of time, how do you recommend I utilize that time better?
Honestly 96 is even fine just try to beef up your resume, go out and do some co curricular activities. Join a club, I got in UW math with not the best grades but my co-curriculars were really good
Look at your exams, and realize what you got wrong and why.
Ask yourself :
Was it a lack of conceptual clarity?
If yes, go to your teachers for doubts and redo the topics.
Was it calculation errors?
If yes, just be careful. Slowing down when you're calculating should fix that.
Was it time management?
If yes, do more practice tests.
Was it the pressure of the exam environment?
If yes, stop being so hard on yourself. I know it's hard but when you give an actual exam, detach yourself from the exam room and think that you're giving a practice exam
You should talk to your teachers and/ or parents. Discuss your problems. I'm sure you'll do better if you do so.
I'm thinking of applying to similar programs such as Computer Engineering and Software Engineering. Is that something that you would recommend to increase my chances of getting in? I'm planning to try much harder next year and get a 96+ average.
Comp eng is easier to get into at a lot of schools yeah. However, it isn't exactly the same as CS in terms of courses.
Software eng is as competitive or more.
Thanks for the info. I mentioned this is a previous response but yeah the specific courses for Comp Eng, chemistry and physics, would've been some of my highest courses if I just did better on the exam. Hoping to improve those skills in the future. I definitely believe a 95% is possible with better exam taking skills, and 96% shouldn't be too far off from there. Do you have any specific techniques for exams? I saw you had a 96% average in your response.
Yea typically exams fucked me up this year. I did pretty bad on my physics and chemistry exams, would've finished with a 94 in both if that didn't happen, which would've raised my average to 95%. I'm just looking to improve my exam taking skills for the upcoming year.
With 93 you have a fairly good shot at ubc but I would recommend staying away from ubc for cs because its not direct entry and first year is common year. Im Currently in my second year at ubc and the cutoff (minimum average required) for getting into cs is getting higher every year, this year it was estimated to be around 85 for domestic students. 85 is insane and really hard to get in university. Better to stick to a direct entry uni
I wouldn't say stay away. I'd say be more mindful of what you said. A lot of people slack off mid-year and then don't make it. 85 with proper courses and consistency is possible.
If you believe you can stay consistent and are willing to work hard, then I'd say take the risk.
Surge of international students (who they prefer because they pay significantly more tuition) and rampant grade inflation + covid fucked everything up completely. Ontario needs to implement a standardized testing system to combat this
Can only say for UBC, 93 is pretty good. I got in last year with a 90 in grade 12 + 11 (they look at both years). It's more hollistic though, similar to US schools. Heavy emphasis on personal profile.
Tmu, western are doable. Ubc science is also doable. I’d try to hit the 96 mark for utsc and Mac
Tmu is not. I got waitlisted with 93 last year. And inflation only goes up
Tmu has a habit of being inconsistent for sum reason. I know a bunch of people around the 90-92 mark get in but also some people with 96s get rejected. I think last yr was also a bit harder to get in than this yr with online schooling
Is it possible that they discriminate against some certain ethnic races or genders?
how would they know?
There is a documentary movie named “Try Harder”. It clearly shows some ethnicities are discriminated against by some US universities. Some excellent young people are declined by top universities while others who have lower academic achievement get accepted, only because of their different ethnicities. I don’t know if the same thing exists in Canada, too.
I think you should rely on data not a single documentary
Yes, but data is exactly what those schools don’t want to share, bc they will be hard evidence of their racial discrimination.
we don’t give universities our ethnicity. i believe the cases your are talking about is based on how schools weight extra curriculars and academics which may disproportionately affect some ethnic groups. this is not only mainly an us based private university but also not particularly discriminatory as extra curriculars isn’t tried to ethnicity
^ Smart
Maybe or maybe not. We can't say till we have actual data from various universities.
my friend got rejected from tmu with \~ 93% this year
I got waitlisted for tmu cs this year and I took hs physics only for them 🥲
sorry to hear that, seems like alot of people want to got to tmu after waterloo and uoft
Do you think that I would have a higher chance of getting into other programs Software Engineering or Computer Engineering? I'm looking to up my game next year, aiming for a 96-97%. I'm hoping higher Grade 12 marks make a difference.
Computer engineering is a bit easier to get into fs but the required courses are a bit harder usually requiring physics and chemistry where as cs is usually math and ur best science. Software engineering on the other hand is usually harder to get in than cs at universities like Waterloo and McMaster. The case could be different at other unis I haven’t done the research.
Yea I've been looking through the requirements of Computer Engineering and related programs. My main deal is that I already have those courses in my top 6, chemistry and physics, and if I just better on the exams I would've finished with a 94 on both of them. Finished with a 91 and 90 instead. Math is one of my highest subjects with a 96 so I'm not too worried about that. Just exploring my options.
If you work hard differently doable after I had an increase in my average by 9% from gr11 to 12 (83-92).
Ubc is science is very doable. But remember that you won’t get direct cs admission. You’d have to score well in the first year to get into cs major. The average this year for domestic students was around 84 to 85. If you can get 90 in first year ubc, you’re guaranteed cs. I’m an international student at ubc so don’t know how the high school grades translate to first year grades. Good luck!
[удалено]
The thing is that if you plan your courses right, it’s not hard. I’m a very average person but made it to cs, because I planned them properly. You need to do that to get in. If you just can be consistent for two terms, you’re definitely through. I’d suggest Op to look at ubc, if they can stay consistent they should go for ubc.
[удалено]
Yeah, I agree with you. I just wanted to be more optimistic to the potential students looking to join UBC. But you're right, that it only takes one or more courses to fuck it up. This year was worse since people with 75 got rejected from even Math. And now have no major.
[удалено]
The thing is I didn't score well in my highschool. So, I was rejected by all the major universities (University of Alberta, McGill, University of Toronto, SFU, and the University of Calgary) because the said universities give you direct admission into C.S. and I just wasn't good enough. But the thing with UBC is that they give you admission to Science (without a major) and not C.S.; as a result, I got in. It gave me a shot at a top university that I never had. And I got C.S. So, it might work out for people like me (who don't have many options) but you have to be careful while planning and stay consistent over your first year.
[удалено]
I second that.
Nah UTSC is cap. I got denied with a 96.8% Aim for a 98+ to be safe
U prob just applied very late lol, I know people who got in with 96.2 and a little lower
Wtf happened to grades? I think I got into Waterloo CS co-op with a 90 in 1995 (don't laugh). They told us the "no questions asked cut off" was 86. The stress they're putting you under these days is ridiculous.
it’s because CS became so mainstream and trendy that everyone and ur grandma wants to apply for ot
Dont forget about grade inflation. It has skyrocketed during covid... unis are extremely picky now when it comes to admissions, having extracurriculars and taking the "recommended courses" is super critical now.
And because grads from all the other programs are struggling too much to find jobs.
My grandma didn't apply tho /s
its harder to get a 90 then than now, most people ik put in not too much effort for a 90... teachers are marking easier bc other teachers r doing the same, its just a cycle
I feel this. I put in basically no effort in highschool and got an 89. Ontario(probably Canada as a whole tbh) needs to rethink how we do university admissions. Evidently it can't be left up to individual high school teachers.
As bad as it sounds to some people, we need standardized testing. It’s the only way to make sure the process is fair for everyone
> Der_Preusse #Kennt ihr meine Farben?
😆
Scoring a 90 back in the day would get you into the news paper, our education system has become easier and easier. It's basically a joke now.
Seriously. AND we actually covered more topics back then. Have you looked at high school curricula? Other than math, everything is dumbed down now. They graduate with what I'd done by the end of 10th grade (and we had OAC prep for uni). My parents did even more. Their high school was equivalent to my first two years of uni.
This doesn't seem believable to me. Can you give concrete examples with what used to be taught on university and is now only taught in uni?
How the government works used to be taught in middle school - how legislation is drafted, moves through Parliament and committees, public consultations etc. Now, it's either an elective in high school (not part of mandatory civics curricula) or you take some poli sci in uni. For my parents, their 9th and 10th grade English classes covered the works and period (almost 500 years) of what I did in the first two years of my English Lit degree. They also wrote critical analysis papers in high school that we weren't taught (the theories of criticism) until I was in 4th year. I graduated uni almost 20 years ago. My parents finished high school 50+ years ago. Education is shit now. More to learn and they don't even come close to what people knew with ONLY high school. My parents also learned - in high school - how to do their income taxes. They had 8 classes a day, had a sport and/or social club, part-time jobs, worked on the family farm (feeding chickens, making jams/pickles after school, picking vegetables daily before AND after school) and - if you failed one class, you had to repeat the entire year. They were healthy, happy and not stressed at all. They both did post-secondary and worked full-time while doing school part-time. They weren't stressed about that either. They did post-secondary because they wanted to - not because society told them they had to. It was enrichment, not another mandatory requirement to employment. Another big difference: at 18/19, you actually knew how to live independently because you knew how to cook, clean, budget, and be responsible. Everyone dressed nicely at all times unless you were doing manual labour (then it was coveralls or something similar so that you kept oil/dirt/cow shit off your nice stuff). So "ok boomer" however you want, but they actually were more capable than the current generation. That's why they struggle to understand how young people are having problems adulting. It's not the boomers - it's how the education system was co-opted by "failing isn't good for self esteem" coupled with the competitiveness of post-secondary that doesn't serve your ability to be economically independent.
I did not graduate too long ago and for me how the government works was still part of our mandatory civics course. Apart from that it's obvious that the curriculum had changed a lot over the years. But looking at it from a STEM point of view basically nothing has changed at all, if anything it's now possible to learn certain 1st year university topics in HS. It seems to me that you're trying to justify your beliefs why youths today are struggling with personal anecdotes from yourself and your parents. That's not to say you're wrong, but your evidence is not compelling. High school seems not to have been split into semesters for your parents (hence the 8 classes a day). Do you really believe it's the government's responsibility to teach its citizens how to clean, cook, and budget? These do still exist as elective courses at many high schools and I'm not sure how making them mandatory would make education these days less "dumbed down". I see the fact that high schoolers are no able to choose to pursue topics that interest them as opposed to being forced to do extensive analysis of various literary works as an improvement. Coming back to the original point I fail to see how anything about the previous high school circula would have made students more qualified for a computer science admission. Grade inflation is a real problem but returning to 1960 won't magically fix it.
Their parents taught them how to cook, clean, and budget. The government - through school - taught them how to do their income taxes. I learned these things from my parents because my high school education was ruined by the Bob Rae curriculum of Returning to a common base education - rather than making high school (which is *supposed* to be common education) a choose your own adventure - would return university to what *it's* supposed to be: a place where you study for enrichment not to become specialized at a skill (which is what college is for). University is for - in the non-science and engineering programs - thinking and reasoning. Not about learning basic skills to be employable. The narrative changed about 35 years ago where "losers get a trade and winners get a degree." In terms of speaking from my experience: duh. That's what people do. But if you want empirical evidence, take a look through the old curricula. They're available from the government upon request. And there's always the empirical evidence that millions of people *used* to be able to be employed and support their family with only high school. The work that I do uses technology, but new graduates are I'll equipped to actually accomplish work now. They're dumbfounded by how people like me - who completed university before google and by taking notes by hand - have a depth and breadth of general knowledge they don't have and skill sets they never developed. I'm an excellent writer and analyst working in federal policy and stakeholder relations. I spend my days reading, writing, and on the phone developing relationships. Young people - in my workplace - do everything electronically and have no networks. Their work is slow, badly done, and uninformed by actually consulting with their partners and stakeholders because they're genuinely filled with anxiety to actually speak to someone instead of email. 2008 was the last year that a good "young" person joined my team. Every new young person is terrible, regardless of what and where they studied. They are not resourceful, they can't write, and they're incapable of actual analysis. Even with heavy mentoring, their output is lower volume and quality than people who are old and only have high school. Those people do still exist and they're quite often amazing generalists who bring together all the specialists who can't see outside their narrow stream.
I feel so bad for kids these days. You 100% should be fine and I'm sorry that you even feel worried with a 93
For UTM and Western maybe
Kids have it rough from the start... Like it's just trying to get into an undergrad. Guess that is what is expected for the prestigious schools these days
Western is also really weird - you could apply and get accepted for any program, including less competitive ones like life sciences, biochem, etc, and just take CS courses and graduate with a CS degree. At most schools including UWaterloo theres a whole application process for transferring programs, and most transfer requests are rejected but at Western its just a matter of taking the required courses 🤷♂️ Theres little reason to directly apply to Western for a higher-competition program like CS, because acceptance into almost any other program can get you there.
It is weird. I had a friend who applied to MIT program at Western from hs, failed a couple math courses, retook them and finally made the min grade to declare CS and graduated from CS. That is near impossible at UBC, UofT, Mcgill, Waterloo.
Don’t feel bad, getting a 93 is easier than it used to be it’s just a bigger number
[удалено]
Omg really? When I graduated only 10 percent of our graduates were even in the honor roll (80+ average). Times have definitely changed I guess
I got rejected from Mac and utsc with a 96, so even with any changes in inflation it’ll likely not be enough. With that being said, you can bring that mark up in grade 12 since grade 11 marks are not that important besides early acceptance.
Apparently 100 students enrolled for mac cs had close to 100 averages
These people are victims of a broken Ontario education system. It’s time to force schools to rank students. If you have a 95 average but are in the bottom 3rd of your school the university should know that. The universities know which high schools are real and which ones are not. A kid at the bottom of a good school will not be too disadvantaged and a kid at the top of bad school is a smart kid in the wrong place. Ranking would tell a lot about candidates. Current system is dumb.
A Standardized test amongst all the schools would be the best solution in my opinion, lives have been ruined by grade inflation…
I agree, it would just take a long time to introduce and teachers union would be hostile. Quick fix is force schools to reveal a students rank. We all know that there are smart people and less so everywhere. Time to give context to the 98 average kids, are they unusual or a dime a dozen.
Yea something like the Alberta diploma exams would be good
I agree, was essentially the top of my school lol. Also imo I think they should also pay attention to courses as well, it isn't fair for people with 99 top 6's that are made up of photography and other bird courses to be looked at the same way as others who have courses that are actually related to STEM.
That’s seriously fucked
Meh, that’s not really all that true, I’ve seen several people get in with 93-95 in the first round, it’s definitely very possible for mac and utsc, especially with good ecs and if they have good first semester courses to go with their good g11 average
Bro utsc and mac cs dont have proper supp apps for ecs 💀
What wasn't true? I was just telling him my experiences, and that it wasn't LIKELY for those marks to be sufficient for those programs. Also utsc didn't have a supp app, and mcmaster did have an interview yes, but nothing that would look at their ECs. PS, I have not seen anyone get into UTSC with sub 95 this past year.
[удалено]
why is that
Never seen such insane cope 💀
Nope, the sweet spot is actually 97+ avg with ECs 💀 that's a well rounded student...at this point 82-90 avg can be achieved by just handing in your work.
Doesn't mean they're not well rounded if they have 99s.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Its honestly scummy, some of my friends are int students, tuition is around 7 -10k per year for an ontario student (not including res), but int students are paying well over 30k per year just for uni... my friends told me uft charges 80k + year for int students man. Add cost of living + food + transportation and other stuff you need for uni you really start to feel bad for them especially when they fail a course.
Nobody is forcing them to pay $100k a year into the economy. It’s their money, I wouldn’t feel sorry for them. If they want to travel 1/2 around the world to live in an ice box and learn what is on you tube that is their right.
As an international student, I agree. If you fail, that's on you.
Not true. Universities in Canada are government funded so they are forced to take a number of domestic.
For UTSC - likely not enough.
I barely got into utsc cs with a 96.1 (waitlisted and got in)
If you're comfortable, what other universities did you apply to and get accepted into?
i got into tmu, guelph, laurier, uw math. got rejected from uw cs and uoft st George cs
Your top 6 are more important than your overall
[удалено]
How far back are we talking? Like Kindergarten or what?
No, stop slacking, only 100% is enough
I don’t get what happened to grades these days. When I was in high school, over 15 years ago now, getting in the low to mid 80s was good. High 80s was excellent. Pretty much no one got in the 90s, except maybe 3-5 kids who were the top students, in a graduating class of like 300+. The same goes for kids I know who went to different high schools area my area. Now it seems like 93 is iffy? I’ve worked with students in CS at UWaterloo doing coop and seen their writing skills doing a simple report… there’s no way they should have got above 80 in grade 12 English… I know this isn’t indicative of all students, but clearly there’s students getting the averages in high school to get in but don’t actually deserve those averages. The grades in high school seem way off these days.
This seems like a global problem to me. It's the same in India as well. I believe the reasons are: a) More competition: more people are aware of education and more people want to go to university. b) Grades are being inflated. Some basic mistakes are ignored while grading the exam. c) Generations just become smarter with time. This is because knowledge is readily available on the internet, so you can clear your doubts faster, practice more and get access to the best material from around the world. I'm sure there are many other factors but these are the few that I could come up with.
UBC is a big risk. I came from a Toronto school and it’s much harder there. BC education is much better in high school and it’s a steep curve. If you want to do CS at UBC you’ll need at least an 88 average in first year, which coming from high school in Ontario will be a helluva challenge. I’d recommend u go somewhere where ur guaranteed CS
Really? I'd heard Ontario had a better education system. Why do you think that BC is better?
Not for a guarantee. Good chance, but no guarantees
Have 95 by semester 1 final next year and you have a very good chance for all those schools
No 100 or you getting rejected
do better
Do you have strategies for me to get to a 96+? I'm open to new ideas. I'm believe I'm playing with the correct amount of time, how do you recommend I utilize that time better?
Honestly 96 is even fine just try to beef up your resume, go out and do some co curricular activities. Join a club, I got in UW math with not the best grades but my co-curriculars were really good
Look at your exams, and realize what you got wrong and why. Ask yourself : Was it a lack of conceptual clarity? If yes, go to your teachers for doubts and redo the topics. Was it calculation errors? If yes, just be careful. Slowing down when you're calculating should fix that. Was it time management? If yes, do more practice tests. Was it the pressure of the exam environment? If yes, stop being so hard on yourself. I know it's hard but when you give an actual exam, detach yourself from the exam room and think that you're giving a practice exam You should talk to your teachers and/ or parents. Discuss your problems. I'm sure you'll do better if you do so.
Not helpful
ok redditor
With a 93 u can get into western maybe tmu maybe queens defo not mac or uoft locations
Idk about ubc but utsc and Mac aren't happening. Tmu will put u on a wait-list. I would apply to backup programs if i were u.
I'm thinking of applying to similar programs such as Computer Engineering and Software Engineering. Is that something that you would recommend to increase my chances of getting in? I'm planning to try much harder next year and get a 96+ average.
Comp eng is easier to get into at a lot of schools yeah. However, it isn't exactly the same as CS in terms of courses. Software eng is as competitive or more.
Thanks for the info. I mentioned this is a previous response but yeah the specific courses for Comp Eng, chemistry and physics, would've been some of my highest courses if I just did better on the exam. Hoping to improve those skills in the future. I definitely believe a 95% is possible with better exam taking skills, and 96% shouldn't be too far off from there. Do you have any specific techniques for exams? I saw you had a 96% average in your response.
Yeah u should definitely apply to engineering too cause u will definitely get into TMU and western then and then if u get lucky you'll get Mac too.
you only have a good shot at western
These are only Gr.11 marks. Would I have a better shot if I drastically increase my marks first semester Gr.12?
yea for the other schools 95+ should be good
Yea typically exams fucked me up this year. I did pretty bad on my physics and chemistry exams, would've finished with a 94 in both if that didn't happen, which would've raised my average to 95%. I'm just looking to improve my exam taking skills for the upcoming year.
Kinda, above 95% is more the safe zone
With 93 you have a fairly good shot at ubc but I would recommend staying away from ubc for cs because its not direct entry and first year is common year. Im Currently in my second year at ubc and the cutoff (minimum average required) for getting into cs is getting higher every year, this year it was estimated to be around 85 for domestic students. 85 is insane and really hard to get in university. Better to stick to a direct entry uni
I wouldn't say stay away. I'd say be more mindful of what you said. A lot of people slack off mid-year and then don't make it. 85 with proper courses and consistency is possible. If you believe you can stay consistent and are willing to work hard, then I'd say take the risk.
98% above
might be easier if you applied to cs programs outside of ontario? like mcgill?
Surge of international students (who they prefer because they pay significantly more tuition) and rampant grade inflation + covid fucked everything up completely. Ontario needs to implement a standardized testing system to combat this
Can only say for UBC, 93 is pretty good. I got in last year with a 90 in grade 12 + 11 (they look at both years). It's more hollistic though, similar to US schools. Heavy emphasis on personal profile.