Colleges in Canada - McGill, Toronto, Montreal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have several American friends who attended the University of Toronto many years ago. They are all currently professors, mainly in philosophy and medieval studies. They all had a very fulfilling time at the U of T.

All of the medievalists I know went to the University of Toronto. All had positive experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd always heard that McGill was the most prestigious university in Canada so I was surprised to learn that it has an admissions rate of 46%.

Different model. Have high/clear/objective standards for admission, no arbitrary cap on enrollment (often driven by dorm capacity in the US), and then use the whole grading scale (not just B- and above). So fewer lottery ticket applicants, everybody who has done the groundwork and can afford not to work FT post-HS gets a chance at a high quality education, and students get judged/sorted based on how they perform in college (HS achievements have little lingering impact). Seems like a pretty sensible approach to me. Would be similar to the top UCs if the system had kept pace with population growth.

Not sure where this myth of B- being the floor started. Just not true. I have four in college at a wide range of schools and we’ve seen grades below that. Not many, but they happen. We have one at an “unselective” school and the work he’s doing is definitely not as demanding, but they will happily hand him a C when he doesn’t study or submits a crap paper.

Elite privates in the US pretty much have this floor. Less selective schools (especially public) don’t. Again, a different model.

I have one in a top ten SLAC. Again, different from truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd always heard that McGill was the most prestigious university in Canada so I was surprised to learn that it has an admissions rate of 46%.

Different model. Have high/clear/objective standards for admission, no arbitrary cap on enrollment (often driven by dorm capacity in the US), and then use the whole grading scale (not just B- and above). So fewer lottery ticket applicants, everybody who has done the groundwork and can afford not to work FT post-HS gets a chance at a high quality education, and students get judged/sorted based on how they perform in college (HS achievements have little lingering impact). Seems like a pretty sensible approach to me. Would be similar to the top UCs if the system had kept pace with population growth.

Not sure where this myth of B- being the floor started. Just not true. I have four in college at a wide range of schools and we’ve seen grades below that. Not many, but they happen. We have one at an “unselective” school and the work he’s doing is definitely not as demanding, but they will happily hand him a C when he doesn’t study or submits a crap paper.

Elite privates in the US pretty much have this floor. Less selective schools (especially public) don’t. Again, a different model.

I have one in a top ten SLAC. Again, different from truth.

I saw lots of transcripts from SLACs while doing graduate admissions. There are certainly schools among the top 10 where anything below a B- is rare. Your kid may be in a program or a school where grading is more rigorous, but the phenomenon I’m describing is very real/striking, especially when you compare kids from SLACs and flagships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd always heard that McGill was the most prestigious university in Canada so I was surprised to learn that it has an admissions rate of 46%.

Different model. Have high/clear/objective standards for admission, no arbitrary cap on enrollment (often driven by dorm capacity in the US), and then use the whole grading scale (not just B- and above). So fewer lottery ticket applicants, everybody who has done the groundwork and can afford not to work FT post-HS gets a chance at a high quality education, and students get judged/sorted based on how they perform in college (HS achievements have little lingering impact). Seems like a pretty sensible approach to me. Would be similar to the top UCs if the system had kept pace with population growth.

Not sure where this myth of B- being the floor started. Just not true. I have four in college at a wide range of schools and we’ve seen grades below that. Not many, but they happen. We have one at an “unselective” school and the work he’s doing is definitely not as demanding, but they will happily hand him a C when he doesn’t study or submits a crap paper.

Elite privates in the US pretty much have this floor. Less selective schools (especially public) don’t. Again, a different model.

Possibly selection bias. Grad school kids are generally the best students.

I have one in a top ten SLAC. Again, different from truth.

I saw lots of transcripts from SLACs while doing graduate admissions. There are certainly schools among the top 10 where anything below a B- is rare. Your kid may be in a program or a school where grading is more rigorous, but the phenomenon I’m describing is very real/striking, especially when you compare kids from SLACs and flagships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd always heard that McGill was the most prestigious university in Canada so I was surprised to learn that it has an admissions rate of 46%.

Different model. Have high/clear/objective standards for admission, no arbitrary cap on enrollment (often driven by dorm capacity in the US), and then use the whole grading scale (not just B- and above). So fewer lottery ticket applicants, everybody who has done the groundwork and can afford not to work FT post-HS gets a chance at a high quality education, and students get judged/sorted based on how they perform in college (HS achievements have little lingering impact). Seems like a pretty sensible approach to me. Would be similar to the top UCs if the system had kept pace with population growth.

Not sure where this myth of B- being the floor started. Just not true. I have four in college at a wide range of schools and we’ve seen grades below that. Not many, but they happen. We have one at an “unselective” school and the work he’s doing is definitely not as demanding, but they will happily hand him a C when he doesn’t study or submits a crap paper.

Elite privates in the US pretty much have this floor. Less selective schools (especially public) don’t. Again, a different model.

Possibly selection bias. Grad school kids are generally the best students.

I have one in a top ten SLAC. Again, different from truth.

I saw lots of transcripts from SLACs while doing graduate admissions. There are certainly schools among the top 10 where anything below a B- is rare. Your kid may be in a program or a school where grading is more rigorous, but the phenomenon I’m describing is very real/striking, especially when you compare kids from SLACs and flagships.

Sorry, buried my comment.

Possibly selection bias. Grad school kids are generally the best students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd always heard that McGill was the most prestigious university in Canada so I was surprised to learn that it has an admissions rate of 46%.

Different model. Have high/clear/objective standards for admission, no arbitrary cap on enrollment (often driven by dorm capacity in the US), and then use the whole grading scale (not just B- and above). So fewer lottery ticket applicants, everybody who has done the groundwork and can afford not to work FT post-HS gets a chance at a high quality education, and students get judged/sorted based on how they perform in college (HS achievements have little lingering impact). Seems like a pretty sensible approach to me. Would be similar to the top UCs if the system had kept pace with population growth.

Not sure where this myth of B- being the floor started. Just not true. I have four in college at a wide range of schools and we’ve seen grades below that. Not many, but they happen. We have one at an “unselective” school and the work he’s doing is definitely not as demanding, but they will happily hand him a C when he doesn’t study or submits a crap paper.

Elite privates in the US pretty much have this floor. Less selective schools (especially public) don’t. Again, a different model.

Possibly selection bias. Grad school kids are generally the best students.

I have one in a top ten SLAC. Again, different from truth.

I saw lots of transcripts from SLACs while doing graduate admissions. There are certainly schools among the top 10 where anything below a B- is rare. Your kid may be in a program or a school where grading is more rigorous, but the phenomenon I’m describing is very real/striking, especially when you compare kids from SLACs and flagships.

Sorry, buried my comment.

Possibly selection bias. Grad school kids are generally the best students.

Problem was we got some really mediocre kids with very high GPAs from SLACs. In the end, transcripts from some of these schools proved almost useless (when everybody almost always gets some kind of A, GPAs cease to differentiate). Had a close friend who was visiting faculty at one of the worst offenders and she agreed that grades were uniformly high there. I never taught at a SLAC, but have graded at two t10 private Us, was an undergrad at a third and have a kid who is finishing up at a fourth and the B- floor has been pretty evident at all of them (though less so in STEM). Doesn’t mean no one ever got something lower, but generally the attitude seemed to be that a B- was damning enough that what’s the point in making fine distinctions among the degrees of worthlessness?

[Anonymous]

One thing your kids should learn before they come to Canada as that Canadians don't really care that much about school ratings. Bragging (or caring) about your school ranking is an American thing. There are lots of good schools and top students choose the school with best program they want typically versus the best school. So a top student going into medicine wold choose a different school form a top student going into engineering etc. You can get a great education at many Canadian universities.

There are lots of friendly rivalries between Canadian universities but they aren't over who is higher ranked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd always heard that McGill was the most prestigious university in Canada so I was surprised to learn that it has an admissions rate of 46%.

Different model. Have high/clear/objective standards for admission, no arbitrary cap on enrollment (often driven by dorm capacity in the US), and then use the whole grading scale (not just B- and above). So fewer lottery ticket applicants, everybody who has done the groundwork and can afford not to work FT post-HS gets a chance at a high quality education, and students get judged/sorted based on how they perform in college (HS achievements have little lingering impact). Seems like a pretty sensible approach to me. Would be similar to the top UCs if the system had kept pace with population growth.

Not sure where this myth of B- being the floor started. Just not true. I have four in college at a wide range of schools and we’ve seen grades below that. Not many, but they happen. We have one at an “unselective” school and the work he’s doing is definitely not as demanding, but they will happily hand him a C when he doesn’t study or submits a crap paper.

Elite privates in the US pretty much have this floor. Less selective schools (especially public) don’t. Again, a different model.

Possibly selection bias. Grad school kids are generally the best students.

I have one in a top ten SLAC. Again, different from truth.

I saw lots of transcripts from SLACs while doing graduate admissions. There are certainly schools among the top 10 where anything below a B- is rare. Your kid may be in a program or a school where grading is more rigorous, but the phenomenon I’m describing is very real/striking, especially when you compare kids from SLACs and flagships.

Sorry, buried my comment.

Possibly selection bias. Grad school kids are generally the best students.

Problem was we got some really mediocre kids with very high GPAs from SLACs. In the end, transcripts from some of these schools proved almost useless (when everybody almost always gets some kind of A, GPAs cease to differentiate). Had a close friend who was visiting faculty at one of the worst offenders and she agreed that grades were uniformly high there. I never taught at a SLAC, but have graded at two t10 private Us, was an undergrad at a third and have a kid who is finishing up at a fourth and the B- floor has been pretty evident at all of them (though less so in STEM). Doesn’t mean no one ever got something lower, but generally the attitude seemed to be that a B- was damning enough that what’s the point in making fine distinctions among the degrees of worthlessness?

All work below a B- is worthless? Yikes I hope you didn’t intend to sound so dismissive.

[Anonymous]

I was trying to capture a dismissive attitude within elite institutions. In some cases, it was dismissive of the work (marginally competent — student decides whether that’s lack of effort or background (and whether s/he wants to try again vs focus on something s/he is better at) or no aptitude. In other cases, it was dismissive of grades — i.e. prof sees the utility of identifying work that is excellent or promising, but not the point of punishing students whose work is barely adequate but who seem to be doing the best they can. And since B-s aren’t going to get their recipients into top grad programs, there’s no equity issue wrt better students. So it seems gratuitous to go lower unless you think the student is shockingly incompetent or irresponsible.

Neither attitude is dismissive of students. Basically the assumption is these kids are good at something (just not the stuff I teach) otherwise they wouldn’t be here. Also you’re talking about faculty who, in the course of their own (extensive) schoolwork, rarely if ever got anything but As or Bs. So they have less of a feel for what C or Ds look like.
And who know that if they give Cs or Ds, the odds of pushback go way up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was trying to capture a dismissive attitude within elite institutions. In some cases, it was dismissive of the work (marginally competent — student decides whether that’s lack of effort or background (and whether s/he wants to try again vs focus on something s/he is better at) or no aptitude. In other cases, it was dismissive of grades — i.e. prof sees the utility of identifying work that is excellent or promising, but not the point of punishing students whose work is barely adequate but who seem to be doing the best they can. And since B-s aren’t going to get their recipients into top grad programs, there’s no equity issue wrt better students. So it seems gratuitous to go lower unless you think the student is shockingly incompetent or irresponsible.

Neither attitude is dismissive of students. Basically the assumption is these kids are good at something (just not the stuff I teach) otherwise they wouldn’t be here. Also you’re talking about faculty who, in the course of their own (extensive) schoolwork, rarely if ever got anything but As or Bs. So they have less of a feel for what C or Ds look like.
And who know that if they give Cs or Ds, the odds of pushback go way up.

Appreciate your clarification. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

McGill alum here, MA after a top LAC in the USA. I'm Canadian, raised in Montreal.

McGill follows the big Canadian model. Elite school, draws many international students, heavy focus on one's department or faculty. At the graduate level, it was great, small classes, but relatively high pressure. Undergraduate classes were large, and many of us worked as teaching assistants.

Living here now, McGill has a great reputation and it has helped my career. The school has many Nobel prize winners and notable graduates.

On the Canadian front, one not mentioned yet but worth a look is Mt. Allison. More of a liberal arts model, but very popular and well regarded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd always heard that McGill was the most prestigious university in Canada so I was surprised to learn that it has an admissions rate of 46%.

Different model. Have high/clear/objective standards for admission, no arbitrary cap on enrollment (often driven by dorm capacity in the US), and then use the whole grading scale (not just B- and above). So fewer lottery ticket applicants, everybody who has done the groundwork and can afford not to work FT post-HS gets a chance at a high quality education, and students get judged/sorted based on how they perform in college (HS achievements have little lingering impact). Seems like a pretty sensible approach to me. Would be similar to the top UCs if the system had kept pace with population growth.

Not sure where this myth of B- being the floor started. Just not true. I have four in college at a wide range of schools and we’ve seen grades below that. Not many, but they happen. We have one at an “unselective” school and the work he’s doing is definitely not as demanding, but they will happily hand him a C when he doesn’t study or submits a crap paper.

Elite privates in the US pretty much have this floor. Less selective schools (especially public) don’t. Again, a different model.

Possibly selection bias. Grad school kids are generally the best students.

I have one in a top ten SLAC. Again, different from truth.

I saw lots of transcripts from SLACs while doing graduate admissions. There are certainly schools among the top 10 where anything below a B- is rare. Your kid may be in a program or a school where grading is more rigorous, but the phenomenon I’m describing is very real/striking, especially when you compare kids from SLACs and flagships.

Sorry, buried my comment.

Possibly selection bias. Grad school kids are generally the best students.

Problem was we got some really mediocre kids with very high GPAs from SLACs. In the end, transcripts from some of these schools proved almost useless (when everybody almost always gets some kind of A, GPAs cease to differentiate). Had a close friend who was visiting faculty at one of the worst offenders and she agreed that grades were uniformly high there. I never taught at a SLAC, but have graded at two t10 private Us, was an undergrad at a third and have a kid who is finishing up at a fourth and the B- floor has been pretty evident at all of them (though less so in STEM). Doesn’t mean no one ever got something lower, but generally the attitude seemed to be that a B- was damning enough that what’s the point in making fine distinctions among the degrees of worthlessness?

All work below a B- is worthless? Yikes I hope you didn’t intend to sound so dismissive.

I think this varies on discipline. I've done a lot of grad admissions too but with students coming from humanities/social sciences. Grade inflation is real across public and private in non-STEM, but at least from SLACs you know students will have done extensive reading/writing/research papers. Many graduates from flagships walk away with having written very few serious papers.