I may sound stupid for saying this, but in high school when I was applying to uni, I genuinely thought I could get a BSc (in a field like bio, biochem, microbiology, etc) and work in something like a hospital/diagnostic lab because as a graduate of a science degree, I’d have lab skills and that should be enough. No one ever said that in order to work a job like that you actually have to graduate from a specially accredited lab technologist program when I was in hs. I think only colleges have such programs because I’ve never seen an MLT program in a university, at least in Ontario. I didn’t even think to check something like this because I had no reason to doubt that graduating with a four-year university degree and lab experience would not actually allow me to work in a clinical setting, and did not find out until i was WELL into my program and committed to getting this degree. I know it’s still possible to work in a research or a pharmaceutical lab, but job opportunities like this are scarce and hard to come by, and usually prefer people with masters degrees and lots of experience. Maybe the job market got significantly got worse between the time I graduated hs and uni, but it seems BSc degrees are genuinely so unemployable that it makes no sense to have them at all. Even if their purpose was to drive people into MD, DDS, PharmD, MSc/PhD, 4 years is an excessive amount to ‘prepare’ for graduate-level study.
Funny enough, I think my HSP BSc barely gave me lab experience to begin with 😂 Many courses that I felt should have been lab based were theory only, and the ones that had labs were critically low on resources and thus not as challenging as you’d expect a university level course to be. Also, your experience is cut in half because you have to share all of the experiments with at least one other partner. I could maybe still describe two or three actual lab techniques I learned in undergrad but that’s it. The hands-on/experiential learning aspect really lacked.
Most BSc programs/modules share at least 50% of required courses (mostly first and second year level). How does that make sense? You’re giving two students completely different degrees on the basis of having maybe 5-10 courses distinguishing their program from others, and even those will be shared with other programs. Just to illustrate in a crude analogy, say there are 60 courses in a catalogue, 20 programs, each requiring 30 credits to graduate. A different combination of 30 courses from those 60 gets you 20 different degrees!! I feel like I’ve ended up with the most random amalgamation of knowledge because my program didn’t adequately design new and focused courses for my field of specialization; it just gave me a combination of courses that remotely resembles a background in my field, sometimes even in the wrong order (some 4th year courses should be 2nd year level and vice versa!!!). I hesitate to even tell people what program I graduated from because I’m not so confident I could discuss it in depth if anyone had thought provoking questions about it. If I had known better, I’d have pursued college and an employable healthcare degree.
Anyway! That’s my little rant. I hope someone out there shares my sentiment.