Though Computer Science and Physics are distinctly different from the mathematics courses, these are still directly useful for a mathematics student to learn—the problem-solving skills should also carry over. Key mathematical discoveries have been inspired by problems in computer science and physics, and many rigorous university-level mathematics books still draw from problems in these fields to motivate certain problems. At the least, they are less laboratory-heavy than Biology and Chemistry (the student could still attempt these subjects, though, and choose to omit the grades for university admissions).
That leaves a couple of other classes—or just one if English is required, as noted by another commenter. My school offered subjects like Grade 12 Drama, Visual Arts, and Music, where much of the grading was effort-based. In my school, most students in my classes saw these courses as a break from other intensive courses, with grades not being as much of a concern. This would allow the student to avoid using a grade for History, Economics, French (or another foreign language), or another subject.
The English requirement would then be a difficult challenge for the mathematics-focused student. I wish I could speak more about what it was like for most of my classmates who went on to study engineering, as many of them took the standard English course (I took a more demanding version of the course, due to personal interest). My classmates at the time did not seem to have an issue with university admissions to competitive programs despite not enjoying the subject at the time, but the other commenter makes a good point that minimum grades for admission standards have increased greatly since then.
--
As an aside: a past classmate later poked fun some years later about the Ontario government's naming for math courses. He said, "there's Grade 11 Functions... and then in Grade 12, there's Advanced (!) Functions." He was brilliant at every high school subject, and was also very personable. The last I heard, he now works at the Citadel hedge fund.
Then in university, there’s Elementary Functional Analysis!
Really? What were the axioms?
As I said it was literally one of the first math courses we did, so it wasn't super rigorous with all the technical and logical details.
So responding to OP, you indeed must be an expert in all subjects to have a chance to study in your field of expertise.
Of course, if English is not your first language then you’re not required to take this course. You have an alternate path which may be a lot more work for an English-language-learner but it doesn’t demand the critical reading and writing skills you would need for grade 12 English.
However, what I found is that even if the professor disagrees with your paper you’ll usually get an 80% if it’s well-written, well-researched, and well-argued. To get above that on something they disagree with requires both a highly open-minded professor and an argument they can’t find fault with.
In practice, I believe every single Ontario university program lists English one of the required courses so it will always be included in your top six average.
[0]: https://uwaterloo.ca/undergraduate-admissions/admissions/adm...
(Mind you, your teachers might not have approached your classes in that way, and high-end literary criticism tends towards performative nonsense°, so I can understand and sympathize if they were a waste of time, but they didn't have to be.)
°It's exactly analogous to Brain Fuck: huge fun if you have the background, intellectual ability, and are in on the joke. Both are mostly pursued for the opportunities they provide to show off How Smart™ you are.
I go to a mid-tier university (Toronto Metropolitan University) and the admissions average for CS was 97% last year.
The admissions process for universities in Ontario is a joke at this point. Imagine if students going to Harvard instead of SUNY Plattsburgh differed by 2 percentage points in their high school averages.
This means you must be absolutely perfect to have a shot of getting into a good school. In reality, teachers overlook mistakes and just give you the marks needed to get into top school if they think you deserve it. But because everyone does that, you also need to farm extracurriculars.
Maybe I'll write a blog post about this since it sounds like people are interested.
UCs historically admitted using a mix of class rank, GPA, and test scores, but the number of seats at UCs didn't really increase in the past decade+ despite a small baby boom in the 2000s, and the growing prominence of STEM in the 2010s, so the average GPAs and SAT scores for UC admissions skyrocketed.
Plenty of Californians have anecdotes of getting rejected from mid-tier UCs but getting into MIT or Stanford. It's had a downstream impact out-of-state as well, as plenty of Californians now attend out-of-state STEM programs for that reason (played a major role in upleveling UT Austin/UW/UIUC/GT/UW Madison's reputations among STEM-targeting HSers ime) and make STEM admissions harder in out-of-state colleges as well.
That said, education quality for STEM majors is consistent across all UCs so the UC you go to doesn't matter as much academic quality wise.
A degree from a good university signifies a smart and dedicated student primarily because the school selects the best students for graduation. That occurs during acceptance and by making the program difficult, causing bad students to leave.
The higher level of competitiveness is hurting the best universities during that acceptance phase. Ontario universities are no longer able to differentiate between the best and average. Waterloo is an exception because it has introduced math competitions across the province as a way to identify "A+++" students, but only Waterloo benefits from that.
I'm noticing that many Ontario schools are now ignoring the acceptance phase and focusing on the weed-out phase. UofT accepts students into a common math/CS program, then only accepts the best students into CS for second year onwards. Queen's University has a common first year for all engineering majors.
Even so, because the acceptance phase no longer differentiates, a lot of good students that would beat the second phase are caught in the first filter.
In Engineering+Accounting+Actuary+Nursing I agree.
> The higher level of competitiveness is hurting the best universities during that acceptance phase. Ontario universities are no longer able to differentiate between the best and average.
Same thing in California, and that's largely because faculty hiring and infrastructure just didn't keep pace with the amount of students declaring Engineering+Accounting+Actuary+Nursing majors (Accounting+Actuary+Nursing face the same problems as STEM fields), which meant admissions need to be much more competitive because you can only teach so many students.
I assume it's a similar story in Ontario due to decades of austerity in the province.
> Even so, because the acceptance phase no longer differentiates, a lot of good students that would beat the second phase are caught in the first filter.
Yep. Because infrastructure didn't scale.
> Waterloo is an exception because it has introduced math competitions across the province as a way to identify "A+++" students, but only Waterloo benefits from that
Yep, the Euclid is basically a soft requirement now for Waterloo CS admissions.
Honestly, Ontario should just ditch "autonomous" universities and merge them under a single "University of Ontario" system and simplifying cross-system course transfers.
Ontario should also force Colleges to stop giving Bachelors degrees and convert them either into Community Colleges to transfer to a University or convert larger Colleges into Universities.
This is what Quebec does, and most state systems in the US (California, Texas, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, etc).
There is no reason for UWaterloo or Wilfrid Laurier to be two different universities despite being a couple blocks away from each other.
Same for UT, UT Scarborough, York, TMU/Ryerson, etc all in GTA
The main advantage that UofT has for its undergraduates is related to funding. UofT’s engineering design teams tend to be better-funded than TMU’s, though TMU’s engineering design teams still perform very well—proudly outperforming UofT’s teams in certain years despite the funding gaps. In addition, some TMU students I’ve spoken with mentioned that UofT has more research opportunities. The name of the university also has a positive impact on admissions for students applying to graduate school. These advantages are not a reflection of the students who attend, but rather UofT’s ability to raise funds.
There is also a disadvantage I’ve seen at UofT. The TMU engineering students I’ve known have mentioned getting extensions approved easily for assignments and homework, to pursue professional opportunities such as hackathons and conferences. That is generally unheard of, from my experience in a STEM program at UofT. Policies are strictly outlined (with some leniency in many courses, such as dropping the lowest assignment mark), and I generally have not seen professors grant exceptions to these.
But the main difference I’ve seen between TMU people and UofT people is university pride. I’ve met several people who were proud to go to TMU and succeed, whereas I haven’t seen that at UofT (with the exception of UofT’s engineering department). I’m satisfied with the opportunities I’ve gotten due to attending UofT—especially as I was involved with its on-campus work program and an engineering design team there—but I haven’t met many UofT people fiercely proud of their school, in contrast to the TMU people I’ve met.
In any case, I am happy to work with people from either school. Work experience and personality has mattered more to me than the name of the university that a person went to, and both TMU and UofT offer great opportunities for students to gain relevant experience—though these are up to the students to pursue, outside of their required classes.
This would also help the case of people like Ramanujan, he might score perfectly on the math portion of the standardized tests, and despite poor scores on everything else, he'd be distinguished.
There's major inequity with the lack of standardized testing.
So all mediocre kids with money have better chance than a brighter kid who couldn't afford coaching. Of course genius could still make it through this system but genius can also make it thru school grading system. There are enough programs to help out them.
Problem here is that barely above average students who wouldn't want to study all subjects per curriculum start to think of themselves as ignored geniuses crushed by the system.
The fact that there are a bunch of asian kids from poor socioeconomic backgrounds who make it into stuyvesant https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/05/233354/stuyvesant-a... is one example of how standardized testing can make it so that hard work can make the difference. I'm not saying that rich kids don't have an automatic leg up, but that's always going to be true regardless. Standardized testing (if anything) gives everyone a shot.
Realistically, it's much easier for a person of average means to study for a standardized test than it is to buy the transport necessary to an international math/science/business/water polo competition.
It's fundamentally impossible for a person to do well in ice hockey if they cannot afford the hundreds of dollars in skates and protective equipment needed to play the game. Taking a standardized test is usually free. Does money give an advantage in both scenarios? Yes, but at least it's not an absolute barrier in the second.
The exams were made by a small panel of teachers and nobody else knew the exam contents until the day of the exam. Everyone across the province takes the exam on the same day and time. Exams were proctored by people external to the school. Exams are again marked by a panel of teachers outside of your school.
Cheating is nearly impossible outside of someone leaking the exam early.
This is basically what Waterloo math competitions are, though. Except only Waterloo can see the results.
Most of these universities look at an applicant's grades for just six courses. After looking at the courses required for certain programs (such as calculus and physics for certain programs), the remainder of the six courses comprise the student's top grades for any courses at the Grade 12 (final year) level.
So, a high school student aiming for a top engineering or mathematics program will not be hamstrung by a poor grade in Grade 12 English, nor will a student aiming for a top international relations program be hamstrung by a poor grade in Calculus. At the same time, the student going into a STEM program will have an exposure to Shakespeare, which can provide inspiration and a rich set of works to explore later in life. The student going into international relations may later be inspired some years later to study mathematics for its beauty as a hobby, some years later.
I remember the feeling that I was wasting time with many of my courses in those years, despite having good teachers for many of them—I thought my time spent on mandatory humanities courses like music took time away from more practical subjects, and I wish I took a programming course (though I did love my English classes). Perhaps this remains true for many students, but I personally took an interest in music performance as a hobby years later in life, and the years-old lessons in music theory came back to me. My English classes also introduced me to literature, which has remained a very important part of my life that has guided me through highly consequential life decisions for the better. It is unlikely that I would have taken an interest in literary works without my exposure to English in school.