2011 Range of DAT/GPA

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

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.

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!

Originally Posted by doc toothache

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!

Originally Posted by JasenClaisen

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.

Originally Posted by doc toothache

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.

Originally Posted by herkulease

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.

Originally Posted by klee0891

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

Originally Posted by clubwestpua

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

That would explain why a similar number of medical schools applicants with excellent stats were not accepted.
https://www.aamc.org/download/270906...ridall0911.pdf

Originally Posted by klee0891

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.

Originally Posted by doc toothache

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.

Originally Posted by klee0891

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.

Originally Posted by klee0891

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).

I wish the quartiles were also reported haha.

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!

AWESOME TOOTHACHE!!

Originally Posted by doc toothache

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.

Originally Posted by doc toothache

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).

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.

Originally Posted by sacapuntas

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.

you retard, 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 moron he copied out of the official ADA book for everyone

Originally Posted by Zbtb7

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.

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

Originally Posted by klee0891

you retard, 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 moron 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.

Keep the discussion on the numbers and stats and keep it civil, please.

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

Originally Posted by klee0891

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.

Originally Posted by klee0891

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.

Originally Posted by Bren1313

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?

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

Originally Posted by MuskieMan33

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...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.

Originally Posted by doc toothache

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?

Originally Posted by Zbtb7

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...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.

+1 I'm with you on this one. Taking out the obvious red flags (poor DATs but high GPA, high GPA from some lower university, etc) I would have to assume the % accepted for those decent applicants goes up.

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.

Originally Posted by doc toothache

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.

Keep in mind many internationals with high stats do not get accepted, as their admissions process if highly competitive.

I agree that high stats alone does not ALWAYS guarantee an acceptance. However, I am sure there are many instances in which one's stats are so high that the interview process itself becomes a formality, so in essence I believe high stats CAN guarantee an acceptance, but not always. I think you are implying that admissions is a game of probability. That is not the case. If you are good you will get in...that is the bottom line. Some people apply to 30 schools and get into 30, others apply to 30 and get into 0. The reason you dont get into one school could also be the reason you dont get into another school, thus each even is not statistically independent. 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.

With that said the minority of people who don't get in with high stats should not alarm us applicants with high stats. I am sure those who did not gain admission have their reason for rejection (poor interview, arrogant attitude, poor recs, etc) as admissions are not withheld arbitrarily. High stats CAN compensate for lackluster showings in other areas, depending on the degree of lacking. Simply put if you have high stats, and good interview/justification for doing what you do I have a hard time imagining you will not gain admission.

Originally Posted by klee0891

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.

Originally Posted by doc toothache

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%?

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?

Originally Posted by klee0891

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.

Originally Posted by Zbtb7

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.

Originally Posted by jimmiething

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.

Originally Posted by doc toothache

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 know that we both have better things to occupy our time than having a back-and-forth on an internet forum, so let us just leave the topic alone and agree to disagree. I will be sure to let you know how my admissions process pans out, in the off (28% ) chance I do not gain admissions to dental school.

You mean the 28% chance you don't enroll in DS.

Originally Posted by lemoncurry

You mean the 28% chance you don't enroll in DS.

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).






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:

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.

Originally Posted by klee0891

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.

Originally Posted by klee0891

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.

Originally Posted by ekephant

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.

Originally Posted by enajmu

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?