Achievement Chart Mathematics Grades 1 12: Fill & Download for Free

I think the answers here are split into two camps. Is your goal to get good grades or to actually really understand the material? The two are of course not mutually exclusive, but some of the tactics mentioned are definitely more focused towards the former than the latter.I graduated from Hopkins at 20 with my BS in BME, Math, and Computer Science and a MA in Mathematics. Since then I've started a few companies, done some other random things, and am finishing my MD and PhD at Columbia .So I've been forced to study for subjects that are memory intensive (medicine) and subjects that are much more understanding based (CS / Math / Engineering) and the approaches I use are quite different for the two.Caveat: At heart, I'm a math / CS person, and you will see my approaches heavily mirror that.1) General Advice: Lots of people pretend not to work / study at these top institutions as a badge of honor and yet still do very well. Occasionally, you'll also meet true prodigies who seem like they do nothing all day but get concepts almost instantaneously (especially true in math). Don't get fooled, the only way to do really well is to work really, really hard. I would routinely stay up for several nights in a row during college (highly highly not recommended.. and I do it a lot less now but sometimes still happens because of medicine).A follow up to that is - absolutely take care of your body. I really really abused my body when I was younger and am still paying a price for it now. It took me *years* to get healthier and it's more than worth it. I can concentrate significantly better now than before and just everything about my life and body works better.2) Memory Intensive Courses: I would try to find connections anyway possible. The process of creating tables and charts for memory intensive material often helped me memorize material. I would occasionally use mnemonics for exams, but they don't seem to help me very much over longer time horizons.3) Understanding Based Courses: The main way I studied for these courses was to do a lot of problems. Previous posters have already mentioned how important it is to have intuition. If you can't look at a problem in math / CS (at the undergrad and beginning grad levels), and immediately start to "scope" the problem, then you don't understand it yet.4) Cramming: I crammed a lot in HS and frankly even now from time to time. The reality is, sometimes, you just don't have enough time. I'll have to completely agree with Ben. It works to get me through the next exam.. but it almost always bites me in the butt in the long term.5) Fund of Knowledge: As Qiaochu mentioned, school actually gets easier and easier as you progress. You'll soon realize that all of science involves variations on a finite set of techniques that gets applied over and over under different guises and names. If you *really* understood the material, these variations on a theme will not only make sense to you, but you'll actually be able to make contributions to fields just by applying techniques from one field to the next. That actually is most of engineering..... (and why physics and math people constantly make fun of each other).6) Bad Habits that I have:I *never* sleep 8-9 hours a day and I'm always impressed at those who can. I would probably say do it if you can, but I've never been able to find the time.I almost never go to lecture (ugrad / grad / med), and I have a suspicion that it quite often was not beneficial for me in terms of learning. If you are really disciplined, don't go to lectures that are taped, if you aren't.. go to lecture. On the other hand, I was involved in various other things that required me to be scheduling activities during the day.. and I don't regret it at all. Ultimately I learned a great deal more during my schooling outside of school (starting companies, internships, jobs, etc) than in school. I would highly recommend doing those things but not at the expense of your GPA if you intend to do things like professional schools afterwards.As I mentioned above, but completely worth re-iterating. Take care of your body.

I am one of those data points. One of the plaintiffs sounds exactly like me: an Asian-American valedictorian applying to the Class of 2014 with a 36 ACT and several extracurriculars.Emotional anecdotes and knee-jerk responses are tempting. I indulged earlier (unwisely?), because if there is anything I feel I can anecdote about, it’s being an Chinese-American applicant to the Harvard Class of 2014, and growing up in an immigrant subculture that that is intensely focused on education and top schools.But now I want graphs. Tables. Numbers. A news article, while nice, is not much better than emotional anecdotes or stereotypes.It took me some time, but I found them!Primarily from the plaintiffs’ Statement of Material Facts and other documents. Harvard has some too. These sources are obviously biased — there’s some fighting about what subsets and controls to use in the regressions — but they include a lot of actual admissions data, so let’s dig into the numbers, shall we?Warning: Long answer with tables and charts. I have largely avoided the contested regressions and stuck to the actual data, though the plaintiffs have excluded legacies, recruited athletes, and Dean’s List applicants from their tables of deciles and Personal scores.(This answer is subject to obsolescence if new information is released in the ongoing litigation.)Here’s how Asian-American and White applicants stack up in four “Profile” categories, which are intended to be race-neutral (that’s right, this isn’t even the “Affirmative Action” part of the lawsuit):As you can see, a higher percentage of Asian-Americans than white applicants excel in Academic and Extracurricular, while the opposite is true in Personal and Athletic. Slightly more white applicants are “well-rounded” in three or more categories.What do these categories mean? Here’s what we know:Academic: “grades, test scores, and other typical measures of academic achievement, such as nationally recognized competitions or awards”1: “has submitted academic work of some kind that is reviewed by a faculty member”Only ~100 applicants per year receive a rating of 1.Aside: enough applicants have academic publications there’s a separate category for them?! This must be quite rare for a high schooler if they haven’t been coached by their PhD parents. On the other hand, I know a first-gen college student who joined a scientific mailing list out of personal interest and drew the attention of a local researcher, leading to first-author publications, so it can be done. A well-earned 1 right there.2: has “perfect, or near-perfect, grades and testing, but no evidence of substantial scholarship or academic creativity.”Interesting choice of words, “academic creativity”.Plaintiff and I are probably 2s. I scored better on some tests than them and other plaintiffs, but at Harvard, perfect and near-perfect merit the same Academic score. Tragic.Extracurricular: “extracurricular activities, community employment, and family commitments”1: [redacted, but probably international and national-level accomplishments]2: “significant school, and possibly regional accomplishments” — for example, “student body president or captain of the debate team and the leader of multiple additional clubs.”Athletic: “athletic achievements” [scores redacted, but 1 is probably Olympic- and international-level athletes; recruited athletes can’t be far behind]Personal: “a variety of ‘subjective’ factors,” including… “character traits”, “positive personality,” … “humor, sensitivity, grit, leadership, integrity, helpfulness, courage, kindness and many other qualities”1: “outstanding” personal skills2: “very strong” skills3: “generally positive” skills4: “bland or somewhat negative or immature”5: “questionable personal qualities”6: “worrisome personal qualities”There are case studies used by the Admissions Office and interviewers as examples of “distinguishing excellences” and how to evaluate candidates in the context of their circumstances. The Casebook excerpts have been redacted, to protect the applicants and stymie zealous college preppers, but they reflect an obsession with using context and personal qualities “to distinguish among the many academically strong candidates in its pool”:Definitions out of the way, here’s the data.This a table of the percentages of applicants with “outstanding” and “very strong” Personal scores. You can see both the Personal scores assigned by the alumni interviewers, as well as those of the admissions office, which is based on the interview report (if available), personal essays, teacher recommendations, school background, and more. The data is arranged by race (columns) and academic index decile (top to bottom, worst to best). The academic index used here is not the Academic score, but calculated from only GPA and test scores, then used to separate the applicants into 10 deciles of about 13,000 students each.For reference, applicants of different races are not equally distributed across academic deciles, so the overall Personal scores are skewed accordingly:I also got really tired of squinting at these numbers, so I squinted at them one last time and made graphs:Takeaway points from this data:Academic index (used by the plaintiffs) is very different from Academic score (used by Harvard admissions).Comparing the first bar graph to last line graph, an Academic score of 2 (“perfect or near-perfect”) corresponds roughly to Academic index 6. That is, about half of all applicants have “perfect or near-perfect” GPA and test scores.You could almost fill the entering class (~1,600) by admitting only applicants with Academic index 10 (~4,000 applicants over 4 years). That group is a bit more than 50% Asian, 35% white, 3% Hispanic, less than 1% black, and the rest “other/decline to state”, presumably also white and Asian applicants.Harvard admissions does not officially distinguish between perfect and near-perfect GPA/SAT/ACT. Everyone over decile 6 is lumped into Academic score 2. (Academic score 1 is reserved for faculty-reviewed academic submissions.) Asian Americans are over-represented in deciles 8+, edging ever closer to “perfect”.Academic index and Personal scores are positively correlated for all races. Surprising — not what I expected from Harvard’s description. This suggests that Personal may actually mean something like “inspirational” and “talks/writes like an intellectual”. Personal != personality, unless you believe kindness somehow tracks with SAT score.Speculation: Is the bonus to black and Hispanic applicants in higher deciles in part due to “Wow, you’re so articulate”-style prejudice? Black and Hispanic applicants are less common in those deciles; they must really stand out to application readers.Speculation: Perhaps more whites and Asians “study to the test” to attain higher standardized test scores. This strategy can improve your SAT score but is unlikely to improve your ability to “talk/write like an intellectual”. Disproportionate hard work may put less-talented students in the upper academic deciles, where they drag down the Personal scores of everyone else. (Use of test prep services is not reported in application data, but in one of the voluntary freshman surveys, it was highest in Asians, then whites.)Oh alumni interviewers. I love you and your grade inflation. You basically gave half of all interviewees the highest possible scores on the Personal rating. The Admission Office was not nearly so kind.Most people are more personable in person. It probably takes a lot of writing skill to be personable in an essay.Different sources of data: The interviewer is evaluating their in-person experience, while the office is reading essays, recommendation letters, and the interview report. The office also has access to financial and high school quality information.Asian Americans have great Academic scores, better than whites — how can their average Personal score be lower?At almost every academic decile, alumni interviewers gave top scores to fewer Asian-American applicants than applicants of other races. (They come out slightly ahead overall because they have a high average academic index.)It was reported that the in-person interviewers gave Asian Americans better scores than the admissions office. While that is true, they also gave everyone better scores. They actually show the same trend as the admissions office.At almost every academic decile, the admissions office gave top scores to fewer Asian-American applicants than applicants of other races. The differences between races is more apparent in the admissions office.Taken together, there were ~4% more whites with high Personal scores from the Admissions Office than Asian Americans, while there are ~1% more among Asian Americans in the interviews. In the highest decile, the disparity is ~7% and 1%, respectively, in favor of whites.Racial disparities are larger in the higher academic deciles — the ones where Asian Americans dominate, and the ones where the serious culling of applicants will take place. The lower deciles are less important because almost no applicants (of any race) in those deciles had a chance at admission in the first place.I’d like to appreciate for a moment what an interesting strategy it was to publicly cast this as a battle between Asian-American and white applicants.When you look at those graphs, is it really the red and blue lines that seem the most different? This data is clearly far more damning to African American and Hispanic applicants.Edward Blum must have realized after the #BeckyWithTheBadGrades case that Asian Americans have great grades and white people are an acceptable target. Better to have a weakly supported narrative about rescuing Asians from elitist racist white people than a stronger case pitting Asians against black people. No one wants to be rejected in favor of some rich white private school kid.Whatever. That’s not the point.The point is, they’re biased against Asian Americans and in favor of African Americans (and Hispanics and finally whites, in that order).Well, I could think of other reasons than bias.We don’t know what “Personal” means. Harvard’s redacted all those juicy details and suggested vague but value-laden traits like “kindness” and “humor”, which are very odd traits to be positively correlated with SAT score. Of course, they have to be vague, or they’ll see a sudden influx of applicants remarkably like the ones in the documents, but it sure looks bad if all you can say to defend yourself is [redacted].In the absence of confirmation from internal Harvard documents, but in line with what everyone already knows about writing a college personal essay, Personal probably owes a lot to Interesting or Unusual.This means you’re screwed if your profile (and background) looks too much like anyone else’s. That’s not fair. It’s especially unfair to immigrants and children thereof, whose characteristics tend to cluster tightly around the requirements for US visas and the cultural values of their communities.I don’t think the admissions office could ever own up to that. At least Americans generally agree on what it looks like to be artistic, humorous, confident, etc. Those things are usually considered important positive traits. Virtuous, even.But Interesting? How is it fair to use something so arbitrary to determine who deserves entry into the Hallowed Halls of Our Greatest and Most August Institutions of Learning™?Can’t you just buy Interesting, like going on a backpacking trip through South America while creating a documentary about migrant farm workers’ orphaned children? Woe to the ordinary, who lack the connections for an internship with a leader in [Something Cool], the money to go gallivanting off in pursuit of adventure, or the poverty for a heartwarming tale of persevering against all odds!What even is Interesting?Maybe an unusual sport or extracurricular, something that causes the reader to think, “I’ve never met anyone who _____ before.”It could mean rural or from an underrepresented state:It could mean that you’re interested in doing something other than the Asian-American favorite, “Medicine or health”, perhaps even expressing interest in the whiter “Government or law” and “Arts, communications, design, or social service”:While we’re at it, being an Asian who is dismissive of liberal arts education is probably not a very good way to get into a liberal arts school. It may reflect a fundamental disconnect[1][2] between what Harvard thinks a Harvard education should be and what the average Asian thinks (any) education should be. You’ll have an easier time getting in if your educational philosophy matches the school you want to get into. While laser-focused math/science types abound, they are much less common (and may have been subjected to more stringent selection) than well-lopsided students with a few different strengths.Or maybe they’re taking your family background into account, too, when trying to gauge your passion for medicine or science:But… Why are those things bad?Isn’t it crazy that the advantages our parents fought so hard for — getting STEM jobs to support us, buying a more expensive house in the right school district, making sure we did extracurriculars, cultivating our interest in STEM, paying for enrichment programs and all the activities we could fit in our schedules — that all those supposed advantages are counted against us, because they’re stereotypical, and we didn’t have as many barriers to overcome on our path to excellence? Is Asian American academic achievement less valuable because it doesn’t reflect innate intelligence, but parental involvement and hard work?Don’t you value parental involvement and hard work?It’s almost like Harvard favors people who excel despite their background more than people who excel because of it. Parental involvement and a good upbringing mask the underlying talent of the student. Meanwhile, the rest of the world usually cares about performance, regardless of the cause.Would the same characteristics be praised if they belonged to an African-American student? A white student?And after all that, then you have to prove that you’re unique and special, but if your application reader has already seen too many people like you, your specialness goes down.But surely there can’t be that many Asian Americans with similar profiles?These racial categories are so broad and artificial, they don’t even capture all the relevant stereotypes/archetypes.There is huge diversity in Asian Americans, though in conversational American English it tends to mean the plurality East Asian group, and in college admissions, tends to focus on Chinese Americans. (Thanks, Amy Chua.) So, are South Asians treated the same way as East Asians? Southeast Asians? (Data on Filipino-American representation suggests no: Filipinos are underrepresented at most selective of UC campuses, after the removal of race from admissions.)Almost 80% of Asian American adults are foreign-born[3], so their children will dominate aggregate statistics like these, but what about Asian Americans who have lived in the US for multiple generations? Are assimilated Asians scored similarly to white Americans?Are white applicants more diverse in life background and interests than Asian-American applicants?Don’t wealthy white kids have access to the same advantages Asians are often cited for using, like pricey prep schools and SAT tutors? Is the admissions office also docking their points on Personal?What about children of African immigrants, who have similar opinions about education and STEM careers as Asian immigrants? Do people just assume that every African-American applicant had to overcome larger life obstacles by default, and thus get a higher Personal score?The statistician for Harvard added those “life background” variables (rural/urban, type of extracurriculars, parental occupation, school quality, neighborhood income, intended career) to his analysis, and came away with the conclusion that once you take those into account, race doesn’t explain the difference between white and Asian-American admission rates. It does still strongly affect African Americans and Hispanics, but apparently we’re not talking about them.But… when does using those “life background” variables cross the line into discriminating against a specific group (racial or otherwise) disproportionately representing a particular “life background”?What else?Culture shapes your personality, either in conforming to or rejecting it, as anyone familiar with the long history of Asian-American angst literature can tell you.Pictured above: prelude to Chinese-Canadian angst. See also the extremely heavy-handed application of Chinese-American angst in Paper Menagerie.I don’t attribute these differences to genetics or “race”. We know very well how upbringing can shape academic outcomes and personality. Anyone can be a Tiger Parent. We just have more of them.We’re also aware that stereotype also includes low sociability/creativity, even as we know many friends who don’t fit that stereotype at all.We can point to charts and surveys about differences in values[4], personality[5], social anxiety[6] , self-esteem[7][8], motivation[9][10], and so on. None of this Academic vs. Personal debate is new. I recall a lot of people being upset by Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior, which I interpreted as “superior in some ways but not in others”.Those factors are also part of the ~4% difference in the average Admissions Office Personal score. At the same time, those factors might be an excuse.Here is what I sometimes suspect my face signifies to other Americans: an invisible person, barely distinguishable from a mass of faces that resemble it. A conspicuous person standing apart from the crowd and yet devoid of any individuality. An icon of so much that the culture pretends to honor but that it in fact patronizes and exploits. Not just people “who are good at math” and play the violin, but a mass of stifled, repressed, abused, conformist quasi-robots who simply do not matter, socially or culturally.I’ve always been of two minds about this sequence of stereotypes. On the one hand, it offends me greatly that anyone would think to apply them to me, or to anyone else, simply on the basis of facial characteristics. On the other hand, it also seems to me that there are a lot of Asian people to whom they apply…“There is this automatic assumption in any legal environment that Asians will have a particular talent for bitter labor,” he says, and then goes on to define the word coolie, a Chinese term for “bitter labor.” “There was this weird self-selection where the Asians would migrate toward the most brutal part of the labor.”By contrast, the white lawyers he encountered had a knack for portraying themselves as above all that. “White people have this instinct that is really important: to give off the impression that they’re only going to do the really important work. You’re a quarterback. It’s a kind of arrogance that Asians are trained not to have. Someone told me not long after I moved to New York that in order to succeed, you have to understand which rules you’re supposed to break. If you break the wrong rules, you’re finished. And so the easiest thing to do is follow all the rules. But then you consign yourself to a lower status. The real trick is understanding what rules are not meant for you.- Paper Tigers, one of the most prominent post-Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother thinkpieces of the Asian-American angst genre.Give off the impression that they’re only going to do the really important work. It occurs to me that it’s the kind of naive arrogance that could go over really well in a college essay. A shibboleth for the elite.Just because something is more common in one group [of surveyed college students] doesn’t mean you can make assumptions about individuals. If there are 4% more white applicants given the top Personal score, that doesn’t mean that all white people have 4% more “personality” than all Asian Americans. A statistical statement is not a categorical statement.We can’t make assumptions about people based on their race, gender, or any other adjective. We have to look at them as whole people, with their own backgrounds and unique circumstances. Unfortunately, that kind of thinking — those “unique” circumstances that overlap with other H1B visa holders — and all that space for subjective personal judgment and cultural preferences — is what got us in this mess in the first place. Even if you consider every person as an individual, without stereotyping, if there are average differences by race, the aggregate outcome will show average differences by race.Maybe we should just judge students based on the most meritocratic, objective, and unbiased measurements: grades and test scores [that my racial group is really good at, and correlate with income].But that just pushes the problem further down the road. Those subjective things like “leadership potential” and “communication skills” are important in real life. They will come back as a bamboo ceiling. We’ll have to deal with people giving us low Personal scores for the rest of our lives if we don’t have the cultural intelligence to improve those skills or advocate for our own cultural values[11].This reminds me of the gender wage gap[12], which can be explained by women’s job choices, personal values, childcare, work experience, flexible hours, maternity leave, and so on. We have a culture that shapes women’s personalities, leading to aggregate inequalities. Maybe the 20% gap isn’t entirely sexism. But biased attitudes are real, especially in institutions that feel no pressure to change.“Lean in” by understanding how your social behaviors will be perceived by others, and how to change them. But if you’re being judged by your stereotype, not your actual attributes, sue the hell out of them. (Bonus: This will demonstrate your assimilation to the ancient American tradition of litigation.)The two legal filings are basically in agreement that there are non-quantitative factors affecting Asian-American admission. The plaintiffs say the non-quantitative part is a racial quota enforced in part by artificially deflating Personal scores by race. The defendants come just shy of saying that the Personal score is a reflection of things like the above tables and that “uniqueness” is negatively correlated to the number of other applicants with the same background.It’s funny how they edge around it. Maybe they can’t explain themselves, because the explanation itself would sound racist. Or it’d mess up their legal strategy.This Personal score is just the tip of an iceberg. I don’t know how much can be attributed to bias rather than underlying differences in cultural values, or overvaluing unusual backgrounds. But if you’re worried about race in Personal, worry even more about race in the Overall score, where it’s explicitly allowed to be taken into consideration.I’ll be quite honest: my education would have been worse without intelligent classmates of all different perspectives. African Americans, South Asians, Europeans, and so on, but also people who were Republican, communist, atheist, poet, Buddhist, Jewish, evangelical, farmer, military, queer, Muslim, dancer, Kentuckian, Texan, homeless, sled dog caretaker, BDSM enthusiast*, whatever. (I met all of them and more.) *maybe not a good topic for your essay thoughAsian Americans have the rare opportunity to learn from the best of two cultures, if we manage to evade the worst of both. As a result, I believe that exposing students to different cultures is part of a world-class education. That means admissions will subjectively judge students on what their personalities and values might bring to the campus environment.But geez, Harvard, I wish you could do that without implying that our culture is the least special of all of them.Footnotes[1] Whither the Liberal Arts at Harvard? | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson[2] As Interest Fades in the Humanities, Colleges Worry[3] https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2015/05/21/113690/asian-immigrants-in-the-unites-states-today/[4] Career Development Attributes and Occupational Values of Asian American and White American College Students[5] Culture and Personality Among European American and Asian American Men[6] APA PsycNET Login[7] ACCULTURATION, COMMUNICATION PATTERNS, AND SELF-ESTEEM AMONG ASIAN AND CAUCASIAN AMERICAN ADOLESCENTS[8] PsycNET[9] APA PsycNET Login[10] Motivation and Mathematics Achievement: A Comparative Study of Asian‐American, Caucasian‐American, and East Asian High School Students[11] Cracking the Bamboo Ceiling[12] What is the gender pay gap and is it real?: The complete guide to how women are paid less than men and why it can’t be explained away

I am assuming you are talking about the Bachelor of Medical Sciences program (BMSc)and not medicine, which requires university undergraduate study to apply.The BMSc is not direct entry and you need to successfully navigate Medical Science First Entry (Medical Science 1 and Medical Science 2) to be admitted to the BMSc which starts in Year 3. You also have to achieve minimum requirements to progress from BMSc years 3 to year 4.If you carry those kinds of grades into grade 12 and graduate, you will have an excellent chance of getting into Medical Sciences First Entry and MS 1 ad MS 2.To progress from MS 1 to MS 2 you need to accomplish the following:Medical Sciences 1 (Year 1):5.0 courses:1.0 course: Biology 1001A and Biology 1002B.1.0 course: Chemistry 1301A/B and Chemistry 1302A/B.0.5 course from: Calculus 1000A/B or Calculus 1500A/B0.5 course from: Applied Mathematics 1201A/B, Calculus 1301A/B or Calculus 1501A/B, Mathematics 1600A/B (see notes below).0.5 course from: Physics 1028A/B, Physics 1301A/B or Physics 1501A/B (see notes below).0.5 course from: Physics 1029A/B or Physics 1302A/B or Physics 1502A/B (see notes below).1.0 1000-level course from either Category A or Category B (see Breadth Requirements for Bachelor Degrees).Notes:1. Modules in Medical Biophysics require either Calculus 1301A/B or Calculus 1501A/B.2. The first-year physics requirement can be taken in either Medical Sciences 1 or Medical Sciences 2, with the exception that students interested in modules in Medical Biophysics must complete the physics requirement in Medical Sciences 1.To progress from Medical Sciences 1 to Medical Sciences 2, students must:Successfully complete a full load of 5.0 courses during the Fall/Winter of Medical Sciences 1;Achieve a mark of at least 60% in the first attempt at each of the half courses in biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics (if taken in Medical Sciences 1) listed above;Achieve a passing grade (mark of at least 50%) in the first-year course from either Category A or B;Not fail any course(s) taken during Medical Sciences First Entry (including summer sessions)In MS 2, you can be guaranteed admission into the BMSc for years 3 and 4 if you accomplish the following:Assured Admission to Year 3 BMSc for Students in Medical Sciences 2:For assured admission, the following conditions must be satisfied by the end of the Fall/Winter of Medical Sciences 2:A full load of 5.0 courses must be successfully completed (i.e., no failures) during the Fall/Winter of Medical Sciences 2 (September-April);Any course(s) taken during the summer sessions either before or after Medical Sciences 2 must be successfully completed (i.e., no failures); ·All courses listed in the Admission Requirements for the module to which the student applies must be completed by the end of the Fall/Winter of Medical Sciences 2. See the BMSc website for the 2000-level Admission Requirements for BMSc Double Majors;The specified minimum mark must be achieved in the first attempt at each course listed in the Admission Requirements for the module to which the student applies;A minimum average of 80% must be achieved on the 2000-level courses listed in the Admission Requirements for the module to which the student applies. If 3.5 or more 2000-level courses are listed in the Admission Requirements, a minimum average of 80% is required on the best 3.0 of these 2000-level courses.Students in Medical Sciences 2 who satisfy the conditions for assured admission receive priority placement in Honors Specialization modules in Year 3 BMSc. The capacity of each Honors Specialization module is limited in Years 3 and 4 due to the maximum capacity in laboratory courses and research project courses. See MODULES OFFERED IN THE BMSc PROGRAM for details about admission to Honors Specialization modules, as well as to Specialization modules and Double Majors, in Years 3 and 4, and the BMSc website for additional information.There is also a second pathway if you don’t meet the eligibility for automatic admission to year 3 BSMC:Admission to Year 3 BMSc for Students in the Competitive Pool:For admission from the competitive pool, the following conditions must be satisfied prior to the beginning (September) of Year 3:Although a full load of 5.0 courses is not required in Year 2, students must be eligible to register in Year 3 (e.g. must successfully complete at least 8.0 credits);All courses taken during the Fall/Winter of Year 2 and during the summer after Year 2 must be successfully completed (i.e., no failures);A minimum mark of 60% must be achieved in each 1000-level half course listed in the Admission Requirements for the module to which the student applies (repeats of these 1000-level courses are permitted);All courses listed in the Admission Requirements for the module(s) to which the student applies must be completed prior to the beginning (September) of Year 3 with the following exception: if 3.5 or more 2000-level courses are listed in the Admission Requirements, only 3.0 of these courses (including the prerequisites, if any, for 3000-level modular courses) must be completed prior to the beginning of Year 3. See the BMSc website for the 2000-level Admission Requirements for BMSc Double Majors;A minimum average of 75% must be achieved on the 2000-level courses listed in the Admission Requirements for the module to which the student applies. If, however, the Admission Requirements list 3.5 or more 2000-level courses, a minimum average of 75% is required on the best 3.0 of these 2000-level courses. Note that an average greater than 75% may be required for admission, depending on the number of applicants from the competitive pool and the number of spaces remaining in Year 3 of the BMSc Program.The specified minimum mark must be achieved in each of the 2000-level courses listed in the Admission Requirements for the module(s) to which the student applies. Students may repeat a maximum of one of these 2000-level half courses and, if one of these 2000-level half courses is repeated, the average on both attempts in the course will be used in calculating the minimum average;Students admitted to Year 3 BMSc from the competitive pool are registered in their modules after students in Medical Sciences 2 who satisfied the conditions for assured admission. The capacity of each Honors Specialization module is limited in Years 3 and 4 due to the maximum capacity in laboratory courses and research project courses. See MODULES OFFERED IN THE BMSc PROGRAM for details about admission to Honors Specialization modules, as well as Specialization modules and Double Majors, in Years 3 and 4, and the BMSc website for more information.Here is a flow chart of the the progression from Medical Sciences to the BMSc:All of this information could have been easily found on the Western website. There is also a video presentation on all of this information that can be found here along with all the relevant application information and links to more info.Admission & Progression