2011 Range of DAT/GPA

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

doc toothache

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
8,514
Reaction score
2,791
Conventional wisdom on SDN is that, in general, ds have a cut-off point for both GPA and DAT scores. The number usually thrown is 17 for DAT and a 3.0 for GPA. The data for the class entering 2011 does not support this misconception. There are 22 ds with a reported minimums of either gpa or dat or both. Out of these, 10 show a min of 17 for dat and 3.0 and above for gpa. More importantly, there are 22 ds with enrollees with DAT below 17, 43 with science gpa and 23 with overall gpa below the magic 3.0. As it has been mentioned before, since Dean/Directors of Admission make the guidelines they can just as easily ignore them. Before members of the Under 3.0 Club start popping the corks on Champagne bottles, let' s keep this in perspective. Only 5.9 % of enrollees had an of AA below 16, 9.3% sci GPA and 2.3% overall GPA below 3.0; roughly 1/3 of the applicant pool with low scores gained acceptance/enrolled. By contrast, 73% of applicants with AA scores at 21+, 72% of applicants with either sci GPA or overall GPA at 3.75+ gained acceptance/enrolled.

Members don't see this ad.
 

Attachments

  • 2011 Range of GPA-DAT- mod 3-31-12.xls
    40 KB · Views: 4,839
Last edited:
This is probably the most interesting D-schools stats thread I have read yet! Super interesting to see where the averages and ranges are at. I wish the quartiles were also reported haha. Thanks again Doc! :thumbup:
 
84% of applicants with overall GPA of 3.75+ gained acceptance.

Wow this is a very high number! Does this mean 84% of applicants with oGPA 3.75+ had at least 1 acceptance?


Thank you for this extraordinarily informative post Doc Toothache!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Wow this is a very high number! Does this mean 84% of applicants with oGPA 3.75+ had at least 1 acceptance?
Thank you for this extraordinarily informative post Doc Toothache!

The actual percentage should have read as 72%. In either case, it points out that clearly not all applicants with super stats gain acceptance. Incidentally, this situation is also found among medical school applicants. The requisite corrections were made.
 
Conventional wisdom on SDN is that, in general, ds have a cut-off point for both GPA and DAT scores. The number usually thrown is 17 for DAT and a 3.0 for GPA. The data for the class entering 2011 does not support this misconception. There are 22 ds with a reported minimums of either gpa or dat or both. Out of these, 10 show a min of 17 for dat and 3.0 and above for gpa. More importantly, there are 22 ds with enrollees with DAT below 17, 43 with science gpa and 23 with overall gpa below the magic 3.0. As it has been mentioned before, since Dean/Directors of Admission make the guidelines they can just as easily ignore them. Before members of the Under 3.0 Club start popping the corks on Champagne bottles, let' s keep this in perspective. Only 5.9 % of enrollees had an of AA below 16, 9.3% sci GPA and 2.3% overall GPA below 3.0; roughly 1/3 of the applicant pool with low scores gained acceptance. By contrast, 73% of applicants with AA scores at 21+, 72% of applicants with either sci GPA or overall GPA at 3.75+ gained acceptance.
You seriously have to take the information with a "grain of salt." I believe most, if not all pre-dental students who were admitted with a science GPA below 3.0 went to receive a masters (w/a post bacc degree) or biomedical science, or something similar. Being that they received a masters, their science GPA stayed the same (far as undergrad) and thats the GPA that dental schools report (AADSAS report.) Not the masters GPA. So again, take it with a grain of salt.
 
sorry didn't notice this thread till now.

but is the data for the from the 2011 adea guide or 2012 adea guide?

Your post says 2011 entering class which makes me think its the 2012 guide but the excel file itself lists the 2011 guide.

I have the 2011 guide and it only shows 2010 entering class info and many of the schools you have ranges/means for are listed as NR in my book.
 
sorry didn't notice this thread till now.
but is the data for the from the 2011 adea guide or 2012 adea guide?
Your post says 2011 entering class which makes me think its the 2012 guide but the excel file itself lists the 2011 guide.
I have the 2011 guide and it only shows 2010 entering class info and many of the schools you have ranges/means for are listed as NR in my book.

It is from the 2012 Guide for the 2011 entering class. In some cases you may be able to find the information under the individual schools.
 
doc,

I am very impressed by your consolidation of data. Your information is very helpful for pre-dental students.

Thanks for the post
 
Enrollee=/=Acceptance

You can be accepted and not enroll. Therefore it is >72% accepted with GPA 3.75+. Let's face it: if you have a 3.75+ you have many options, with dental school being one of them but not necessarily your top one.

This means they secretly applied to both medical and dental schools and chose medicine. grim future awaits them :smuggrin:
 
This means they secretly applied to both medical and dental schools and chose medicine. grim future awaits them :smuggrin:

That would explain why a similar number of medical schools applicants with excellent stats were not accepted.
https://www.aamc.org/download/270906/data/table24-mcatgpagridall0911.pdf

Enrollee=/=Acceptance You can be accepted and not enroll. Therefore it is >72% accepted with GPA 3.75+. Let's face it: if you have a 3.75+ you have many options, with dental school being one of them but not necessarily your top one.

Actually NO. The data is for enrollees=matriculants; it is not for those "accepted", otherwise there would be duplication.
 
If it is for enrollees, then you can assume that 72%+ were accepted (if 72% enrolled). The enrolled/applied is not an accurate statistic. A more realistic one would be accepted/applied with each person (yes or not) either having 1 or more acceptance or not, this would not count multiple acceptances.

So your position is that a significant portion of those who are accepted into dental school(s) will decline the offer(s) and do something other than go to dental school?

I think you should create your own spreadsheets.
 
Last edited:
If it is for enrollees, then you can assume that 72%+ were accepted (if 72% enrolled). The enrolled/applied is not an accurate statistic. A more realistic one would be accepted/applied with each person (yes or not) either having 1 or more acceptance or not, this would not count multiple acceptances.

You will have to explain your logic a little bit better, because in your view, the ADEA /AAMS appear to be clueless. There is a great deal of variation on what individual ds report as accepted and, as such, it is an unreliable statistic. In either case, the information provided is that for the total population of applicants/enrollees and, like it or not, roughly 28% of applicants with excellent statistics (gpa, dat, mcat) do not enroll/matriculate in either dental or medical schools for whatever reason(s).
 
Last edited:
I wish the quartiles were also reported haha.
9.jpg
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm sorry to have this resurface again, but just to make sure, these are the most recent statistics in terms of DAT scores for this last cycle? I am applying this cycle and want to get an accurate representation of each school. I have the 2012 ADEA statistics, but I can't seem to find these same statistics? I'm curious how accurate these are. Thanks again!
 
You will have to explain your logic a little bit better, because in your view, the ADEA /AAMS appear to be clueless. There is a great deal of variation on what individual ds report as accepted and, as such, it is an unreliable statistic. In either case, the information provided is that for the total population of applicants/enrollees and, like it or not, roughly 28% of applicants with excellent statistics (gpa, dat, mcat) do not enroll/matriculate in either dental or medical schools for whatever reason(s).

Isn't the ~70% enrollment value for those with 3.8+ sgpa "OR" 21+ AAs? Candidates may have gone to grade-inflated schools and had low test scores or they did poorly in school and aced the DAT to compensate. Both of these types of individuals would in included.

Could we assume that those with a 3.8+ sgpa "AND" 21+ AAs would have a higher enrollment rate than ~70%? Even in medicine those with 3.8+ sgpas and 33+ MCATs have enrollment rates in the 85%+.

I kind of wish the ADEA had a statistical grid like the AAMC that broke down applicant's success rates by both gpa and test scores.
 
you ******, im not saying a significant percent do that because we are dealing with about a fraction of the 28%. read above. and he didnt make this spread sheet you ***** he copied out of the official ADA book for everyone

The way you respond to adverse commentary anonymously on an internet forum says a great deal about your character.

I hope your true colors are obvious to adcoms and that I don't end up in a class with you.
 
Was the TS mean for Tennessee really 25? That seems REALLY high and surprised me based on the rest of the data.
 
i dont have to explain my reasoning better because you seem to already understand what i was saying. yes we agree that 28% of people with those stats do not enroll, but let us not confuse it with the fact that not enrolling doesnt mean rejection. that is all i was saying. thus if 72% matriculate then 72+% must have been accepted. the remaining 28% could be accounted for by those deferring enrollment for a year or doing something else or, yes, rejection from all the schools they applied to. its wrong to conclude that 28% got rejected. also some people with high GPA might have low DATs and that could be their cause of rejection. i'd wager that nearly all those applicants with 3.75+ and a 22+ who applied BROADLY got accepted.

While it may be true that the high percentage that did not enroll doesn't necessarily mean rejection, the number of students deferring admission is pretty much negligible and it would be a safer wager than the one you are willing to spend your month's salary on. It seems unlikely, however, that such a large number of applicants have had a sudden change of heart. A plausible explanation is that there may be some ambivalence about their chosen career and there is not left that is worst that would kill one's chance of acceptance. Whatever explanation there may be for the high percentage of students who either don't gain acceptance or are outright rejected in spite of the high stats, does not change the statistics.

yes, this is what i was saying before everyone's panties got in a bundle. there are confounding factors behind these numbers. there are multiple variables so drawing a conclusion using the 78% number is wrong. this isnt a controlled experiment. people should stop trying to draw wrong conclusions from numbers

You are right it is not an experiment, but than it does not require an elaborate model to look at the actual numbers.

Was the TS mean for Tennessee really 25? That seems REALLY high and surprised me based on the rest of the data.

You mean them boys/gals in the hills could not possibly get a high DAT score?
 
Last edited:
Why is it surprising that Tennessee can have high numbers? There are smart people all over the country. People everywhere can do well on their DAT, people from every state can also do poorly.

The 2011 ADEA book I have has Tennessee as not reported the DAT mean and the GPA was 3.57
 
Why is it surprising that Tennessee can have high numbers? There are smart people all over the country. People everywhere can do well on their DAT, people from every state can also do poorly.

The 2011 ADEA book I have has Tennessee as not reported the DAT mean and the GPA was 3.57

I'm fairly certain his comment wasn't intended as a bash on Tennessee, but merely an observation of the fact that 25 is the highest TS on the list, by a margin of 2 whole points, the next closest being hyper-competitive Harvard and Columbia. Also, the 25 TS doesn't seem to add up with Tenn's 18 AA 18 PAT and 3.56 sGPA. It seems like an outlier, that's all he was saying.

Edit: Forgot to say thanks Doc Toothache!
 
If you look at the gpa/MCAT grid for med schools, those with 3.8+ gpas OR 30+ MCAT scores have on aggregate acceptance rates in the low 70% range( https://www.aamc.org/download/157958/data/table25-mcatgpa-grid-white-0911.pdf ) . However, if you combine these two stats, the acceptance rates increase to 83% and higher.

Doc Toothache: wouldn't applicants with both a high gpa AND a high DAT score (i.e. 3.75+ and 21+) have a higher aggregate acceptance rate? We aren't given the exact stats like in the AAMC data but shouldn't the acceptance rate for those with high stats be 80%-90%, similar to med schools? I know that extracurriculars and interviews are a huge element of admissions but it's hard to believe that 1 in 3 people with stats well above school averages, and competitive for med schools to boot, don't get into any dental school.

While it may be true that the high percentage that did not enroll doesn't necessarily mean rejection, the number of students deferring admission is pretty much negligible and it would be a safer wager than the one you are willing to spend your month's salary on. It seems unlikely, however, that such a large number of applicants have had a sudden change of heart. A plausible explanation is that there may be some ambivalence about their chosen career and there is not left that is worst that would kill one's chance of acceptance. Whatever explanation there may be for the high percentage of students who either don't gain acceptance or are outright rejected in spite of the high stats, does not change the statistics.



You are right it is not an experiment, but than it does not require an elaborate model to look at the actual numbers.



You mean them boys/gals in the hills could not possibly get a high DAT score?
 
It seems that some of you keep getting snagged on the same trip wire. The post was not about the relevance of high/low number of those not gaining acceptance/enrollment in either dental or medical schools. Rather, the statistical evidence provided the ammo to dispel the myth that high gpa/dat scores are a sure ticket to gaining acceptance. The grid, courtesy of AMCAS, provides unequivocal evidence that even with gpas of 3.8-4.0 and MCAT at 39-45, fully 6% in this applicants pool are not accepted.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind many internationals with high stats do not get accepted, as their admissions process if highly competitive.

I used the grid for white applicants to minimize the proportion of international applicants in the pool. Being international, getting accepted and not enrolling (i.e. applied to med and dental schools), and other explanations can't account for the fact that a significant fraction of med school applicants (up to 1 in 6) are rejected despite great stats. And this is for med school, which appears to focus on the numbers game more so than dental schools. Thus, Doc Toothache has this argument. Great stats don't guarantee acceptance. Myth busted.


In either case, the information provided is that for the total population of applicants/enrollees and, like it or not, roughly 28% of applicants with excellent statistics (gpa, dat, mcat) do not enroll/matriculate in either dental or medical schools for whatever reason(s).

I was contesting this statement. Shouldn't the proportion of applicants with a high gpa and DAT that get accepted be a notch higher than those with either a high gpa or DAT, which is the data given by the ADEA? Would it be safe to infer from the AMCAS data that the proportion of applicants with excellent stats (being a combination of a 21+ AA, and 3.75+ sgpa and ogpa) that don't get in is around half of 28%?
 
Last edited:
How is it possible people are getting in with these scores? For instance, someone gained acceptance to Marquette with a 2.6? Do you think they had a parent in the faculty or something?
 
Keep in mind many internationals with high stats do not get accepted, as their admissions process if highly competitive. If you are not good enough and you apply to all the dental schools in the US hoping the law of averages will procure an acceptance (because on average X% of applicants get accepted) you are grossly mistaken. Admissions is not a lottery; it is a merit system.

Until you have some statistical evidence, your claim will be quarantined with the other "unsubstantiated claims" frequently seen on sdn. "Grossly mistaken"; it will be neither the first nor the last time.

I was contesting this statement. Shouldn't the proportion of applicants with a high gpa and DAT that get accepted be a notch higher than those with either a high gpa or DAT, which is the data given by the ADEA? Would it be safe to infer from the AMCAS data that the proportion of applicants with excellent stats (being a combination of a 21+ AA, and 3.75+ sgpa and ogpa) that don't get in is around half of 28%?

Ds statistics are likely to closely parallel those found with med schools. Rest at ease.

How is it possible people are getting in with these scores? For instance, someone gained acceptance to Marquette with a 2.6? Do you think they had a parent in the faculty or something?

For all we know, the fella with the 2.6 has a Nobel Prize Nomination pending.
 
I was being facetious in my post :). I was making the argument above how that 28% doesnt mean a rejection rate of 28% for those with high stats (people dont enroll/get accepted into school with high stats: international applicants, 0 dental experience, etc).
That's some big presumptions.

Others were arguing that since 28% did not enroll and that negligible # of people would not enroll given an acceptance, etc. that the rejection was was ~28%. This is implied by the wording in the OP. It says "gained acceptance" when it should read "enrolled" I was arguing that this wrong word choice has a totally different meaning because it implies a correlation:

The post was modified to meet your objection.
 
Sorry to bump an old thread, but I was wondering if the GPA ranges represented strict cutoffs. I'm a recent graduate with a 2.99 cumulative GPA and I don't know if I should even consider applying to schools with 3.0 as the lower range. I intend to enroll in a science class at a CC to hopefully raise my GPA to 3.0 hopefully the class won't be filled up by the time my registration window opens. Any advice is appreciated.
 
Sorry to bump an old thread, but I was wondering if the GPA ranges represented strict cutoffs. I'm a recent graduate with a 2.99 cumulative GPA and I don't know if I should even consider applying to schools with 3.0 as the lower range. I intend to enroll in a science class at a CC to hopefully raise my GPA to 3.0 hopefully the class won't be filled up by the time my registration window opens. Any advice is appreciated.

It is unlikely that a 3.0 will take you out of the danger zone. The ultimate answer can only be given by the ds in question, but you should notice that even schools that claim a cut offs have ranges below the claimed numbers. Taking a "science class at a CC" to raise your GPA is hardly going to impress adcoms.
 
Thanks for the response. I already know my GPA isn't going to impress anyone, just didn't want to be completely rejected due to a 0.01 point. I'm still planning on applying this upcoming cycle, and hopefully some adcoms will be impressed by the other sections of my app. Thanks again
 
Get a high DAT score, write an intelligent and attention getting personal statement, have excellent letters of recommendation and unique life experiences as well.

That or take some upper level science courses somewhere convenient and get high marks to balance that GPA and show a positive upward trend.

This is coming from a D1 at Creighton who applied last cycle with a 3.35 cumulative, 3.0 science GPA and a 18AA on the DAT.

I knew dentistry was for me and it showed on my application. Although my grades weren't necessarily there, my drive was and continues to be strong.

Also, when I say get high marks, go for the A. Really try because trust me, being a D1 is no walk in the park and undergrad seems like cake at this point (the classes aren't necessarily more challenging, however, the workload is like "drinking through a fire hose" as most of the faculty put it). Currently taking the equivalent of 50+ credit hours worth of courses ;).

Good luck everyone!
 
did all the schools use the AADSAS GPA for these stats? cuz I see a lot of 4.0s and maybe they didn't use it and account for A+s.
 
did all the schools use the AADSAS GPA for these stats? cuz I see a lot of 4.0s and maybe they didn't use it and account for A+s.
Do you really think it would significantly shift the scale?
 
Sorry, I looked but couldn't find it, but is there similar data around for the class entering in 2012?
 
Conventional wisdom on SDN is that, in general, ds have a cut-off point for both GPA and DAT scores. The number usually thrown is 17 for DAT and a 3.0 for GPA. The data for the class entering 2011 does not support this misconception. There are 22 ds with a reported minimums of either gpa or dat or both. Out of these, 10 show a min of 17 for dat and 3.0 and above for gpa. More importantly, there are 22 ds with enrollees with DAT below 17, 43 with science gpa and 23 with overall gpa below the magic 3.0. As it has been mentioned before, since Dean/Directors of Admission make the guidelines they can just as easily ignore them. Before members of the Under 3.0 Club start popping the corks on Champagne bottles, let' s keep this in perspective. Only 5.9 % of enrollees had an of AA below 16, 9.3% sci GPA and 2.3% overall GPA below 3.0; roughly 1/3 of the applicant pool with low scores gained acceptance/enrolled. By contrast, 73% of applicants with AA scores at 21+, 72% of applicants with either sci GPA or overall GPA at 3.75+ gained acceptance/enrolled.

It's an interesting thesis doc, but we must also consider that those statistics do not include the percentage of students accepted for a given GPA and DAT. For example, we would expect that students who scored at least a 21 AA on the DAT and who have an above average GPA to be accepted at a greater rate than students who scored a 21 AA on the DAT and have a lower GPA to get accepted. It may well be the case that well over 90% of students who have a GPA above 3.75 and a DAT of at least 21 to get accepted. Also, it may be the case that students with higher statistics are more selective as to which schools they're willing to attend, while students with lower statistics tend to apply more broadly.

EDIT: by the way doc, do you know of any chart providing information on the rate of acceptance for students where both the DAT and GPA are factored in simultaneously? I ask because I have a 3.4 GPA and 23 AA, and according to the DAT data I have a 72% chance of gaining admission, while according to the GPA data I only have a 45% chance of gaining admission. A chart factoring in both DAT and GPA could eliminate such ambiguity.
 
Last edited:
Top