I realize that this is a touchy subject, and I don't wish to offend anyone. Please read my comments and I would love to hear what you think.

How much time did you spend studying for the science portion of the DAT? For me, more than any other section. My scores were: Bio 18, OChem 18, GenChem 17. Total science: 18. I feel that the science score is a pretty good guage of my understanding of that specific material. Over the course of my studying, my scores improved significantly. When I see people who have total science in the 20s, I think, "Wow, this guy is a great student and probably worked his tail off to get all As in the sciences."

My PAT, QR, and RC scores were always in the 20s from the very first practice test I took, all ranged from 20 to as high as 24. On the actual test my scores were PAT 21, RC 22, and QR 20. I realize that there are MANY with scores even higher on those sections and I am not bragging about my scores in any way. In studying for these sections, I mainly focussed on going through the questions under timed conditions. When I see someone with scores for these sections way in the 20s, I think, "Wow, this guy is a genius. He must be really smart, and that's all there is to it."

So when you have polar scores, like I do. Lower in the sciences, higher in the other sections, what does it say about me? "This guy is smart and has potential, but apparently did not use his natural abilities to excel in the sciences." Or in other words, "He must be lazy." That's what I think.

When I see the opposite polarity, namely high sciences, and low everything else, I think, "Bless his heart. He must have studied his brains out. Too bad he's really not that smart." (smart meaning a reflection of IQ)

Am I right? Are RC, QR, and PAT supposed to be a reflection of IQ? Do the sciences really show how hard you are willing to work and study? That's my opinion. There's no way someone without training in the sciences could do well at all in the sciences, but there are genius elementary aged kids who could probably outscore all of us on the PAT, QR, and RC.

Your thoughts?

I don't think the RC and QR apply to the whole genius thing. I think if you do well on RC w/o rlly practicing it just means that you are used to reading at an accelerated pace and more importantly comprehending what you read. Like when I practiced RC I found that it was easy for me not because I am more intelligent but because I am an avid reader. Also , if someone were a foriegn student your theory won't apply.

As far as QR goes.. it might be , but it's definetly one fo the easier things to improve on. I like this section the most but thats mostly because it is one of the easiet sections.

I don't think PAT is a reflection of IQ but rather an indicator of how well you can visualize things spatially. In dentistry we must be able to look at a 2-D representation of the tooth on an x-ray/digital image and be able to convert that in our mind to 3-D. Also, when prepping a tooth or opening a tooth for a root canal we must be able to "visualize" the location of the nerve canals and the root structure even though we can only see them on x-rays. PAT offers the adcoms the ability to assess an applicants potential ability to do these types of things.

I realize that this is a touchy subject, and I don't wish to offend anyone. Please read my comments and I would love to hear what you think.

How much time did you spend studying for the science portion of the DAT? For me, more than any other section. My scores were: Bio 18, OChem 18, GenChem 17. Total science: 18. I feel that the science score is a pretty good guage of my understanding of that specific material. Over the course of my studying, my scores improved significantly. When I see people who have total science in the 20s, I think, "Wow, this guy is a great student and probably worked his tail off to get all As in the sciences."

My PAT, QR, and RC scores were always in the 20s from the very first practice test I took, all ranged from 20 to as high as 24. On the actual test my scores were PAT 21, RC 22, and QR 20. I realize that there are MANY with scores even higher on those sections and I am not bragging about my scores in any way. In studying for these sections, I mainly focussed on going through the questions under timed conditions. When I see someone with scores for these sections way in the 20s, I think, "Wow, this guy is a genius. He must be really smart, and that's all there is to it."

So when you have polar scores, like I do. Lower in the sciences, higher in the other sections, what does it say about me? "This guy is smart and has potential, but apparently did not use his natural abilities to excel in the sciences." Or in other words, "He must be lazy." That's what I think.

When I see the opposite polarity, namely high sciences, and low everything else, I think, "Bless his heart. He must have studied his brains out. Too bad he's really not that smart." (smart meaning a reflection of IQ)

Am I right? Are RC, QR, and PAT supposed to be a reflection of IQ? Do the sciences really show how hard you are willing to work and study? That's my opinion. There's no way someone without training in the sciences could do well at all in the sciences, but there are genius elementary aged kids who could probably outscore all of us on the PAT, QR, and RC.

Your thoughts?

If you spent the majority of your time studying for the sciences...I don't think it's about "laziness" as you put it.

I think it has to do w/ how well you can assimilate and apply information.

So, who says there isn't a certain intelligence quotient involved with that?

How many times in dental school are you going to have to learn new information and apply them to novel situations on exams? I'd say the ability to learn science and apply it to exam situations is pretty important.

I don't think having a high RC QR PAT but low science scores makes you "smart." If you want a good idea of how intelligence is measured...I think the Standford Binet test or Mensa IQ tests are a much better indicator. The concept of IQ is very very complicated...RC, QR, and PAT are not the best at quantifying IQ.

Yes, high science scores are about hard work...but I think there is more to it than that. Also, when it comes to understanding science...I think there is quite a bit of lateral thinking involved. Maybe not IQ in the classical sense...but still, more than hard work is involved.