Latest News

a, Opinion

A role for chance?

by Joshua Freedman on

More in a:

Everyone who gets into an elite university, including our own, probably feels at one time or another that they were deserving of meriting acceptance into the school, and that the admissions committee did not reach this decision lightly.  A highly revealing article published by Ron Unz in The American Conservative entitled “The Myth of American Meritocracy” calls this assumption into question. In this piece, Unz raises uncomfortable questions by parsing vast amounts of data to show that certain racial and ethnic groups are disadvantaged by standard admission practices (at least in Ivy League schools), and generally calls into question the utility of an admissions committee at all.

While focusing on how many ethnic groups are disadvantaged by admission committees, Unz’s clearest example of discriminatory practices are those that relate to Asian-Americans. He points to a troubling fact that since 1993, Ivy League acceptance of Asian-Americans has declined from 20 per cent to 17 per cent, despite a growing population and increases in household income. Though they comprise only four to five per cent of the U.S. population, Unz notes that Asian-Americans make up about 30 per cent of high school National Merit Scholars, and form the majority of participants in high-level math and physics competitions.

Statistically speaking, Asian-Americans must score 140 points higher on their SATs to be given the same standing as white counterparts. All else equal, it seems that Asian Americans should form a larger proportion of the student population than they currently do. So what is leading to this impasse?

[pullquote]By indulging in chance and eliminating bias, universities will see many salutatory benefits.[/pullquote]

It is obvious that if some groups are being under-represented, then there are other groups who are the exact opposite. While not assigning any nefarious motives, Unz points out that the American Jewish population is likely over-populated in the Ivy Leagues. This is the case for a combination of reasons, he concludes, including Jewish academic merit, prior guilt from excluding Jews from Ivy Leagues, and the prevalence of Jews in high administrative positions in elite universities. Unz speculates that this mix of factors has allowed subtle biases to influence the admissions process, stymieing the chances for other groups to be admitted into these schools.

Unz’s solution is simple. Admit certain clearly deserving students to fill a small portion of your class, such as those who have won various academic awards or achieved a perfect SAT score. For the more difficult task of filling in the majority of an incoming class, Unz suggests setting a minimum threshold of acceptability, and then picking students through a lottery system. By indulging in chance and eliminating bias, universities will see many salutatory benefits. While the selection process would not be a perfect meritocracy, it would bring the schools closer to reaching this stated goal. Secondly, Unz hypothesizes that students would feel more humble about getting into these elite schools, knowing that their acceptance was predicated on chance, and laying waste to the notion that getting into a top school is completely merit-based.

Luckily, many of these afflictions found in the United States do not plague McGill, at least not to the same extent. In Fall 2009, McGill admitted 48 per cent of students, a rate much higher than the Ivy Leagues, and with less selectivity comes a lesser chance of applying under-the-table admissions practices. However, Unz’s idea to introduce lottery based admissions schemes could have a great benefit. First, this idea could save the university money by eliminating some of its admissions committee. McGill administration staff, which includes its admissions committee, made approximately $22 million in salary, according to the 2011 McGill budget. A computer is a lot cheaper than a staff of workers, and—if Unz is right—possibly more effective. Second, a lottery would eliminate any chance of overt or hidden biases affecting the chances of a student getting into McGill. In a field where picking students to attend your university is more of an art than a science, maybe it’s time to lay our fates in the hands of chance.

Genome sequencing helps predict the inheritance of diseases (lejeuneusa.org)
a, Science & Technology

DNA testing offers healthier future

by Bharat Srinivasa on

More in a:

Just before I was born, my parents consulted an astrologist to find out if I would be born healthy. Using the stars, the astrologist made predictions about my mental and physical development. 

Before my kids are born, I might go to a company such as 23andMe. 23andMe uses DNA sequencing to recognize if babies will be genetically susceptible to certain diseases as they grow older.

The technology used by 23andMe was made possible due to the Human Genome Project, which successfully sequenced the complete human genome. Published in 2003, the human genome was to be the harbinger of the age of personalized medicine. However, the costs of whole genome sequencing were prohibitively expensive, and time consuming.

Costs have dropped dramatically in the past few years, increasing accessibility of sequencing the genome to a large number of people. The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), which tracks the costs of sequencing a genome, estimates current prices to be around $7000, down from around $50,000 when the human genome was published, due to improvements in technology.

The time to sequence these genomes has been reduced as well. In October 2012, a research group from Children’s Mercy Hospital, in Kansas City, Missouri, managed to sequence the whole genome of a baby in 50 hours.

Currently, there are a number of companies that offer to test single genes or a panel of genes related to a certain disease. While useful, these tests, which range between $500-1,000, might only be prescribed in case the family has a history of that disease.

Whole genome sequencing offers the ability to analyze the entire genome, thereby providing clues to what diseases may arise, irrespective of heredity. Additionally, genome sequences can help provide evidence of extremely rare hereditary diseases, which the targeted genetic testing provided by companies may not reveal.

Finally, knowing the genome of the newborn child or fetus could help provide appropriate genetic counselling to parents early on, and help physicians design targeted therapies. The decrease in costs, as well as the benefits whole genome sequencing provide, has dramatically increased demand for this procedure from the public. Soon, it may be the norm to obtain a whole genome sequence of a baby as soon as it is born, and use this data to determine future medical intervention.

Whole genome sequencing, however, is not without its drawbacks. The New York Times, in a piece on the procedure, states that out of 100 patients with any genetic disorder that was sequenced, only 30 patients had a misprinted gene detected by whole genome sequencing. Of these, only three per cent of the patients receive better management, and only one per cent gets treatment.

As of now, whole genome sequencing to identify diseases is still like looking for a needle in a haystack. We do not know all the mutations in a gene that could give rise to a disease. Most diseases arise from defects in multiple genes, further complicating diagnosis. Even if genes suggesting increased risk of disease were to be identified, we lack the ability to treat many of these diseases with current medication.

Improvements in genome sequencing and reduction in costs will someday help doctors better tailor medicine towards the individual patient. With developments in DNA testing, parents will no longer have to consult an astrologist to predict their kids’ physical and mental development. Instead, a DNA sequence will provide insight into their susceptibility to disease. Scientifically, this is the way forward.

 

a, Science & Technology

How does our memory work?

by Abhishek Gupta on

More in a:

The human brain, composed of over 100 billion cells, is a natural work of art. Groups of brain cells, called neurons, and their synapses—the gaps in between them—are the functional units of the brain that allow us to store memories. While these cells are responsible for what we remember, what enables us to recall our sixth birthday party, but forget what the professor talked about 15 minutes ago in class? Welcome to the mysterious world of the human memory.

The difference between remembering that birthday party over the lecture material revolves around the differences in how we organize and process short and long-term memories. Psychologists view the memory system as analogous to a computer in terms of consisting of three phases: encoding, the process of transforming information into a neural code that the brain can understand; storage, the retention of that code; and retrieval, the act of recalling that information.

The modal memory model proposed by Richard Atkinson and Richard Shriffin in 1968 gives a deeper understanding of how memory works, by breaking it down into three types of memory. Sensory memories are the most brief form of memory, lasting for a fraction of a second. An example of sensory memory is when you look at something and quickly glance away. Due to your sensory memories, you can recall only some of the object’s details. It allows us to take in the world as a continuous stream, rather than discrete chunks of information.

By contrast, short-term memory, also known as working memory, holds data in awareness for a brief period of time, during which our brain can use it to carry out several necessary processes. The retention period for short-term memory is around 20 to 30 seconds. For instance, when looking up a telephone number and walking across the room to dial it, your working memory is at work. Unless you repeat this task over and over again, some digits begin to fade by the time the actual number is dialed.

Another aspect of short-term memory is memory span, which refers to the number of distinct items that can be stored in the working memory at a time. Initially, this number was suggested to be seven (plus or minus two) by George Miller. However, a more recent study conducted in 2005 claims that the span may be as little as four items. Next time you try to remember a phone number for a friend, don’t feel bad when you forget a digit—your short-term memory really only retains four at a time.

On the other hand, long-term memory, the more permanent component of the memory system, is a much less transitory system. Essentially, long-term memory logs new information by associating it with other related topics already stored in your memory.

This is why it is harder to learn something completely new, as opposed to learning about something you’re already familiar with. It’s also why you shouldn’t wait to take Calculus 3 long after you have completed Calculus 2.

Furthermore, the precision with which your neurons store information depends on the strength of the neural associations formed in your brain. It is much easier to remember facts related to information already stored in your memory than to learn a wholly novel concept.

But not all content of the long-term memory is reliable. McGill professor Karim Nader proposed the process of reconsolidation, which explains why some of our long-term memories are distorted. According to Nader, once memories are activated or retrieved, they must be consolidated to be stored in the brain as memory. An improper restoration could ultimately lead to distortions in your memory. This concept could be used to treat trauma patients by helping them retrieve painful memories, and then disrupting the reconsolidation process to alleviate the pain associated with those recollections.

a, Science & Technology

When Mendel meets Darwin

by Lauren Mokry on

More in a:

First there was Darwin, who published the revolutionary On the Origin of Species in 1859, introducing the world to the theory of natural selection. According to this theory, genetic variations arise as adaptions to differential environments, where any profitable traits that incur a survival advantage are selected for and preserved through inheritance. In other words, if a long nose gave you the upper hand over other members of your species, the population would evolve to favour large snouts.

creationrevolution.com
creationrevolution.com

Enter Gregor Mendel and the re-discovery of his pea experiment. Mendel cross-bred different combinations of peas in order to illustrate patterned inheritance of genes from one generation to the next. A contemporary of Darwin, the scientific community did not accept the significance of Mendel’s work until the 20th century, when DNA was identified as the molecule that was passed down from parents to their offspring.

After this recognition, Mendelian genetics could be combined with natural selection, placing a new emphasis on reproductive success. In the modern evolutionary view of natural selection, it is imperative that an organism survives until the age of sexual maturity in order to pass on their genes. ‘Mutation proposes and nature disposes,’ with regards to new genetic traits.

Interestingly, throughout this evolutionary discourse, it was assumed that natural selection exerts its pressures only on the organism. But what about our cells? Our bodies are made up of trillions of cells—would they not be exposed to the same selective pressures?

Scientists asked these questions too, adopting an accepted model of cellular and genetic integrity. According to this model, while there are different types of cells with different functions, each cell contains the same genetic profile. Whether DNA is extracted from our blood or our hair, the sequence should theoretically be the same—the only notable exception is the distinctive mutations observed in cancer cells.

Recently, with the advancements made in biotechnology, this model came into question. For the first time in history, we have the tools to readily sequence different tissues at will. As a result, some evidence shows that we are not composed of a single genetic sequence, but rather, a mosaic of many genetic sequences specific to different tissues.

How does this genetic diversity arise? McGill professor of the Department of Human Genetics Dr. Bruce Gottlieb explains:

“Studies have shown that early on in fetal development, you can get the DNA repair mechanism turned off in certain tissue, and you acquire variant [gene sequences].”

This variation leads to a kind of cellular ‘survival of the fittest,’ where the cells with the evolutionary upper hand prosper, compared to others who fail.

“Selection then takes place, and you only select the wild type (the trait that prevails in normal conditions) [of the gene]; however, the others are still there,” says Gottlieb. “The idea is that, you are getting a panoply of variants, and they are there to protect the tissue. If you get a change in environment, they can respond to it.”

bp.blogspot.com
bp.blogspot.com

Based on this new theory, our bodies should be thought of as a composite of microenvironments to which our cells must adapt. Therefore, genetic diversity would be advantageous to an organism. Having the ability to adapt would provide cells with a better chance at survival in many different situations, such as if a virus killed off a certain cell lineage, but left another one unaffected. In order to survive, this remaining cell lineage would require genetic variation, in order to make up for the other lineage being killed off.

This theory is gaining momentum among cancer researchers, as it helps to explain our failure to identify carcinogens. For instance, cigarette smoke is believed to be a cause of lung cancer. However, when you expose cells to smoke, they are not mutagenized, compared to what occurs when you are, for example, exposed to UV rays. An alternative explanation may be that it is this smoke that is selecting for a lung cancer causing mutation, since those cancer cells thrive in the conditions. Based on this new theory, cigarette smoke does not cause a mutation; rather, the mutation was always there. The smoke selects the mutant out of our diverse gene bank.

While it is necessary that more research be conducted before drawing conclusions, it appears that the theory of natural selection should be applied to our cells. At the end of the day, why should they be treated any differently?

eyeofsky.com
a, Science & Technology

Touchscreens

by Abhishek Gupta on

More in a:

Touchscreens have revolutionized the way we interact with digital devices. The most important attribute they have brought to the user experience is the reduction in the learning curve of operating a device. A simple tap on the screen can trigger commands that would have otherwise been complicated with a mouse and keyboard.

Keyboards posed a problem for some computer users, due to the fact that most populations are not 100 per cent literate. With the advent of the touchscreen, people need only touch an icon on a screen to perform the desired task, rather than type in a command. The increasing ease in operation has immense implications for increasing the universal use of technology around the world.

The idea of the touchscreen has been around for decades. The first working prototype, a resistive touchscreen, was developed by American inventor Sam Hurst in 1982. What we see in smartphones, tablets, and other devices today, however, are capacitive touchscreens. There is a marked difference in the fluidity of the touch experience between the two formats.

The resistive touchscreen is composed of transparent, electrically resistive layers, which have a thin gap between them. When the screen is pressed at a particular point, the layers come in contact, and they behave as voltage dividers. Using this mechanism, the position of the touch on the screen can be tracked and fed into the control unit.

The problems with this type of display are that it requires a harder touch to register a signal, and the mechanism wears out over time—both of which reduce the functionality of the touchscreen. In contrast, the capacitive touchscreen works on the principle that the human body is a great conductor; the screen has a glass panel coated with a transparent conductor such as indium tin oxide. When the screen is touched with the finger, the electrostatic field (a field of charged particles) of the screen is disrupted, which enables the desired function.

This process results in a highly effective phone, as the screen can be activated with merely a gentle touch. The only flaw associated with this format, is that it cannot be operated using gloves or any another material that cannot conduct (which becomes a problem during Montreal’s cold winters).

The potential applications of touchscreens are impressive. At the keynote of the 2013 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) under the theme “Mobilizing Possibilities,” Samsung introduced an innovative range of flexible displays called “Youm.” Using Organic Light Emitting Diodes (OLEDs) on a plastic sheet, they created high-resolution displays that bend. This technology allows many novel phone features, such as the expansion of the smartphone’s screen, enabling it to curve around the edges of the phone. This curved area could be used for looking at notifications, such as text messages, while the device is lying flat on a table. The Youm platform is one of many innovations that will define the next generation of touch-based devices.

a, Editorial

Editorial 101: The process behind an editorial

on

More in a:

Every Friday, the Tribune’s editorial board meets to plan our editorial for the coming issue. We start with a range of ideas, and ultimately focus on the one that seems to us to be the most relevant, controversial, and interesting. We then discuss, each member bringing forward individual perspectives, but all the same aiming to reach group consensus. For this special issue, we take you behind the scenes of our editorial board discussion with an annotated editorial. Please see the image on the left to see the full version.

Click to see the full 'deconstructed' feature!
Click to see the full ‘deconstructed’ feature!

By the time that this editorial goes to press, the Parti Québécois’ (PQ) long-awaited Summit on Higher Education—being held on Feb. 25 and 26—will have come and gone. The Summit, announced upon the PQ’s electoral victory in September, promised open and sincere discussion on education policy that had the potential to produce immensely constructive results. Unfortunately, much of the optimism that met the initial announcement has died down; the poor communication, planning, and a range of other issues leading up to the event have greatly hampered the likelihood that the Summit will fulfill its full potential.

Although some election promises, such as the PQ’s inflexible approach to issues of language and culture, were immediately at the forefront of its agenda, the summit took much longer to materialize than most expected. Until very recently, it was only referred to by the government in the vaguest of terms: the date and location were not announced for months; parties attending the summit were only told what would be on the agenda immediately before the pre-summit consultations; even now, on the French-only website that has been put together for the event, information is extremely difficult to find, and does not show the time and location of the Summit on the front page. More than anything, the Summit looks as though it has been thrown together at the last minute, a trait that is seeming increasingly common for the PQ’s style of governance.

The nature of a minority government is such that its future is always uncertain; there is a constant need to make concessions, and satisfy enough of the opposition to remain in power. This government’s actions since being elected, however, go further than this. It seems to act with no eye to the future, simply reacting to the problem at hand. In December, the PQ announced of $140 million in funding cuts to universities across the province. They were unveiled with no prior warning to stakeholders, and shortly after the announcement of the PQ’s budget. This budget seemed to make a point not to take money from post-secondary education, and continued to herald the PQ’s implementation of a tution freeze. Once again, a lack of communication made the situation much worse than it might otherwise have been, as stakeholders scrambled to react.

Although the amount and timing of the cuts are proving catastrophic to schools—especially those like McGill that were already encountering budgetary problems—it is not all that much money for a government in the grand scheme of things. If the government viewed education as a priority, there are other places this money could have come from which would have had a less immediate and crippling impact. One example that springs to mind is the Plan Nord, which has seen none of its $2.1 billion in government funding face cuts. Ultimately, $140 million is small when dealing with billion-dollar budgets.

The cuts will inevitably shape the discussion at this week’s summit. They essentially conveyed the message, before discussions even began, that extended funding to schools is off the table. The same has been said about the possibility of a discussion on free tuition, with Minister of Higher Education Pierre Duchesne dismissing the idea only weeks before the Summit. If matters like these are not even part of the discussion, then the discussion is inevitably incomplete. The balance of power was established before the Summit even began, and the government has made it clear that it will only hear ideas to which it is already favourable.

All of this has culminated in a situation where no party approached the Summit with any real optimism as to what can be accomplished here. Whether the PQ truly doesn’t view education as a priority, or is simply finding itself overwhelmed with the realities of running a province, it has essentially doomed this Summit to failure, making little progress on deciding the future of Quebec’s education system. Although the PQ has recently seemed to equate ‘culture’ with ‘language,’ education has long been an integral part of Quebec culture. If this government chooses to neglect it, it will be writing off a large part of this province’s past—and of its future.

Carol Huynh celebrates a gold medal. (vancouverobserver.com)
a, Behind the Bench, Sports

IOC wrong to pin wrestling

by Joshua Freedman on

More in a:

As a fan of Mixed Martial Arts, it should be no surprise that I have developed an interest in the sport’s different components.

This is why I was so excited to watch Freestyle and Greco-Roman wrestling during the London 2012 Olympic games. For anyone who tuned in to watch these sports, wrestling provided some of the Olympics’ greatest moments. On the women’s side of the bracket, two Canadians, Carol Huynh and Tonya Verbeek showcased their toughness with a hard-fought bronze and silver medal, respectively. On the men’s side, the Canadian Matthew Gentry came up just short of winning a medal in the men’s 74 kg freestyle. The man to whom he lost—the sublime American wrestler, Jordan Burroughs—dominated the gold medal match in a weight class typically won by Eastern European and Iranian wrestlers.

Given the athletic drama that wrestling provides, it came as a shock that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to remove wrestling from the 2020 Games last week, leaving in other sports such as modern pentathlon. Not only are many people ignorant to what modern pentathlon is, one would also be hard-pressed to find anyone who knows which five disciplines constitute this bizarre Olympic sport. For those interested, it is a combination of pistol shooting, fencing, 200m freestyle swimming, show jumping, and a three-kilometre run. Designed to emulate the plight of 19th century cavalry soldier deep in the enemy’s turf, it unquestionably captures sport in the 21st century… or not.

The IOC’s purported reasons for removing wrestling were vague and not forthcoming. They said that this decision was not intended to discredit wrestling, but rather, to affirm how important the other 25 Olympic sports are, and how the IOC now has room to include a new sport in the 2020 games.

This reasoning is foolish. First, wrestling has been included in every modern Olympics since 1896, and was the key component of the ancient Olympics. Wrestling is also a truly global sport, with 71 nations competing in the last Olympic games, and 29 different countries medalling. To eliminate this sport from the games would be a sign that the modern Olympics have no appreciation for its deep and rich tradition.

Next, the IOC’s decision reeked of corruption. Modern pentathlon maintained its status as an Olympic sport because of the persistent lobbying of the former IOC President’s son, Juan Antonio Samaranch Jr. It’s not a stretch to say that nobody would be surprised if this ‘lobbying’ took place inside of fancy hotels and with the exchanges of fancy leather briefcases.

Wrestling also does not have a professional league. The Olympics is the only way any wrestler can ever expect to make a living from the sport, an option the IOC’s decision has put in jeopardy.

Finally, the move is unnecessary as the IOC could have just extended the Olympics another day, without eliminating any sport, and still adding new ones.

Fortunately, all is not lost for aficionados of this noble sport. Wrestling still has a chance of being picked for the 2020 games amongst a host of other sports such asbvnvgbnn   wakeboarding, karate, golf, baseball, squash, wushu, and sports climbing. Countries like Iran, Russia, and the United States are all deeply invested in maintaining wrestling’s status as an Olympic sport, and will likely lobby very hard on its behalf. If, for some reason, the IOC does not reinstate wrestling into the games, the committee will be sending a very clear message: consumerism and special interests are more important than the pursuit of athletic excellence.

 

(Sam Reynolds / McGill Athletics)
a, Sports

Championship Recap

by Jeff Downey on

More in a:

RSEQ Championship — Track & Field

For the third time this season, McGill hosted the wealth of track teams from across Quebec in the RSEQ provincial championships.

Battling hard throughout the weekend, the Martlets claimed their first conference title in the last six years—thanks in large part to an incredible meet by Alana Battison. En route to becoming female athlete of the meet, Battison claimed two golds, three silvers and a bronze to amount for 28 points over the course of the weekend.

Helping out Battison in the first place push were gold medallists Caroline Tanguay in the high jump, and the 4x200m relay contingent of Sarah Glen, Clare Williams, Ellen Parker, and Helena Reinfels.

On the men’s side, a different story unfolded. Finishing third overall, the team failed to garner the results that the Martlets did. However, the team still mustered three golds over the weekend.

Vincent Parent-Pichette was golden twice, first individually in the 1000m and then again as the anchor of the 4x800m relay. Joining him in the relay bid were Benjamin Raymond, Nathan Goldstein, and Michael Abramson. Riley van Ryswyk then closed the weekend with a gold in the pole vault, clearing 4.31m.

Done now with provincial competition for the year, McGill Track and Field turns its attention to the national scene for the final event of the season for the CIS Championships, where 20 athletes have earned the right to compete. Athletes are nominated based on their results throughout the year, needing to meet standards set for each event to qualify. Any gold medallist from the RSEQ championships automatically qualified.

Most of McGill’s medal hopefuls land on the women’s side, with Battison leading the charge in the pentathlon.

The CIS national championship runs March 7-9 in Edmonton, Alberta. 

(Victor Tangerman / McGill Athletics)
(Victor Tangerman / McGill Athletics)

CIS Championship — Swimming

The butterfly, backstroke, breaststroke, and freestyle cmake up swimming’s individual medley (IM). It’s easy enough to remember, yet incredibly difficult to perform. Therefore, Steven Bielby’s feat of a CIS gold medal sweep in the 200m and 400m IMs are that much more impressive.

Over the weekend, Bielby joined 18 other McGillians in Calgary for the CIS National Swimming Championships. Over the course of the meet, McGill claimed four medals—Bielby’s two golds, along with a bronze and silver from upstart Katie Caldwell, again in the 400m IM and 200m IM. Overall, both the Redman and Martlet swimmers finished eighth as a team. Caldwell was chosen for the second all-Canadian team, and Bielby reached first team all-star status.

Other strong results over the weekend came in the relay, where the men’s 4x200m relay team beat a McGill record, clocking in at 7:24.89, good for sixth place. The quartet, anchored by Pierre-Alexandre Renaud also includes Bielby, Marc-Andre Benoit, and Erik Cheng. The 4x200m women’s relay team—comprised of Caldwell, Taryne Landry, Rebecca Cheverton, and Jennifer Darling—broke a McGill record as well, as Caldwell swam the lead-off leg in 2:00.90.

With Bielby having now completed his final race as a Redman, a look back on his career reveals a history of excellence. By far McGill’s most decorated swimmer, Bielby amassed 13 CIS medals, including eight golds, one silver, and four bronzes, as well as four all-Canadian selections over his five years with the team. Internationally, he has represented Canada twice at the World University Games, and plans to compete for his country for a third time this summer.

With the season over, the Martlets and Redmen take a break, before looking forward to another exciting 2013-2014 campaign.

McGill has already beaten Montreal five times this year, but needs two more. (Jesse Conterato / McGill Tribune)
a, Sports

Martlets overcome Game 2 scare to sweep Ravens

by Adam Sadinsky on

More in a:

When you win 28 games in a row, some inevitably will be close and others less so. That was the case in the Martlets’ RSEQ semifinal series against the Carleton Ravens last week, as they prevailed 9-0 and 3-1, en route to a two-game series sweep. While Game 1 was a cakewalk, McGill relied on some late-game heroics from Stacie Tardif to advance to the RSEQ finals.

Heading into the semifinal series, there was no doubt that the odds were stacked in the Martlets’ favour. They were the top seed, had won 28 CIS games in a row, and had previously beaten Carleton 70 out of 72 games in their all-time series. The Martlets also had yet to lose an RSEQ playoff game since February of 2005, so anything short of a win would have been unacceptable.

As they have done all season—and in many before it—the Martlets pounced early and often in a dominating Game 1 performance. The dynamic duo of Leslie Oles and Mélodie Daoust contributed an other-worldly seven and six points respectively, as each registered hat tricks. On any other night, the three points scored by Katia Clement-Hydra and Chelsey Saunders might have been the story, but in a game where one of Oles and Daoust had a hand in eight of the team’s nine goals, credit must be given where it is due. The Martlets didn’t even need those eight goals, as Taylor Salisbury stopped 17 shots for her fourth shutout of the year.

(Jesse Conterato / McGill Tribune)
(Jesse Conterato / McGill Tribune)

The return date in Ottawa was a different story, however. After a scoreless first stanza, Carleton burst out of the gates and took the lead when Tawnya Guindon beat Martlet goalie Andrea Weckman under three minutes into the frame. Despite four power play opportunities, the Martlets seemed to have wasted all of their scoring power in Game 1. They went into the second intermission staring at a 1-0 deficit and a possible rubber match back at McConnell Arena.

Who else could the Martlets look to but the prolific Oles and Daoust to rouse them from their scoring slumber. As the period neared the halfway point, Daoust found Oles, who slipped the puck past Ravens goaltender Eri Kiribuchi for her fourth of the series. The teams dug in for the next 10 minutes, as any goal would likely end or extend the series. The Martlets were granted an opening with less than two minutes to play in regulation when Ravens defender Erin Beaver was called for interference. McGill jumped on the chance as Tardif—who is not known for her scoring prowess—fired a shot from the face-off circle that beat Kiribuchi, sending the Martlets into the final and their fans to delirium. Chelsey Saunders would add an empty net marker to ice the series.

The Martlets now prepare to take on the rival Montreal Carabins for the right to represent Quebec at the CIS Championships in Toronto in March. The Carabins have only lost five of their 20 RSEQ games this season, with all five defeats coming from McGill. The puck drops on Feb. 27 at McConnell Arena.

(Luke Orlando / McGill Tribune)
a, Sports

Ken Dryden takes skills from the rink to the classroom

by David Stein on

More in a:

McGill Tribune (MT): Growing up, how did you balance the challenges of being a student, with your high expectations as an athlete?

Ken Dryden (KD): All my life I played sports and all my life I was in school. I liked both. If you like something, you get absorbed by it. You lose track of time because you just keep doing it. You can see when you’re not doing it well [and] you see when you are doing it well. You notice how you feel in each instance. You like how you feel when you’re doing it well, and you don’t like it very much when you’re not, and you want to get better. … Once you develop a kind of taste for doing something well, you don’t lose it, you don’t leave it behind, because it haunts you. So to me, it wasn’t any different whether it was on or off the ice. It’s just—if you’re going to do something, you may as well do it well.

MT: How would you describe the course you lecture called “Thinking The Future to Make The Future” and why did you decide to teach it at McGill?

KD: This is the second year I’ve taught this course. I went to McGill with the idea and it was kind of an experimental [at first]. The approach of it is not to focus on learning what was and what is, but to apply that to what a future might be. So I divided up the course into different elements of the way in which we live; whether it is the workplace, family, religion, health or healthcare, or politics and public discourse. To have [a lecturer] in who’s an expert in each of those fields [is important]. I enjoyed doing it last year and I’m enjoying it again this year.

MT: You wrote a book titled “The Game” in 1983. What inspired you to write it?

KD: I read a lot of sports books while growing up and when I played. Some of them were very good, but none of them described quite what I had experienced as a player, and the full life that you live. That’s natural [because] everyone takes in experiences differently. So I wanted to have my chance.

MT: Why was the 1972 Summit series so special?

KD: It was one of those very special experiences [and] it turned out more special than any of us ever imagined because it was harder than we thought [it would be]. In the end, because it was harder, it was far more memorable.

MT: How closely do you pay attention to what is going on in the NHL?

KD: I think I watch like most fans. It’s once or twice a year, that I’ll watch a whole game. I’ll see bits and pieces, and I go to one or two games a year. I’ll catch the sports at 11, so I roughly know who’s doing well [and] who isn’t. About every two or three weeks, I’ll look at the standings and be surprised at some [team] who I missed that is doing better than I thought, or some teams that are performing worse than I thought. I watch the first round of the playoffs, but [the subsequent rounds] less.

MT: What was your take on the recent NHL lockout, and who do you think was to blame?

KD: This was something that was going to happen.  And like a lot of things, a trail of something before leads to something later. The seeds were sown in 2004. So you arrived last summer when they really started negotiating, and all you had to do was look at the circumstances of the parties. The league had won in 2004. The end result of that negotiation was that the NHL players’ association basically broke apart—its leadership left, the interim leaders came and went; it was a mess. … They were run over in 2004. So when you lose, you need to find a way of winning the next time, or else others see you as a loser; players know that better than anybody. When you win, you see yourself as a winner. Winners win. Winners win the next time. Winners can’t lose. Self-images get determined out of all of that. So going into this negotiation, you had one that had to win and one that [couldn’t] lose. … In 2004, the owners could claim victory because they got the salary cap, even if a season was lost. This time, neither was going to win if there wasn’t a season. I think in the end, that’s what generated the season.

MT: How do you react when someone compares a current NHL goaltender to you?

KD: Usually, the person bringing it up will sort of think ‘Well wait a second, he’s early in his career. He hasn’t earned his place yet.’ That’s not what it feels like to me. For me, you just don’t know yourself as a player. You played, but others can put you into some kind of perspective. I don’t have that perspective on myself.  I just know what I see on a television screen. I see some nights—and whether it’s Carey Price or somebody else—just doing what seem to be impossible things. If the commentator [compares that goalie] to past ones, [including myself], then that’s terrific. It’s wonderful because what you see on the ice looks so good, so if people want to make that comparison, then thank you very much.

1 … 1,034 1,035 1,036 1,037 1,038 … 1,363

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue