Boards to be Pass/Fail, what does this mean for residency programs?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Dr.Millisevert said:
There is no such thing yet.. and I doubt they will come up with one and make it available before 2010.
Click to expand...

I understand there's nothing in place yet, I was just putting forth a hypothetical situation in regards to the scenario livinthedream set up.

As far as the time it takes to set up something like this, I don't know if any of us understand how long it takes for something like a new test to come about. It's possible, as I've mentioned before, they could use an already existing, yet less relevant test, like the DAT or GRE to assess applicants until something is in place.

Maybe it's just me, but I simply can't imagine PDs trying to sort out 100s of applicants based on GPA/Rank alone, especially when a good chunk of those applicants have literally no objective information (P/F schools).

As far as basing everything on intangibles like research and community service, I don't see how you can say that someone can excel in a specialty program just because they were the president of their dental fraternity and were third author on some random molecular biology publication in college. It's way too wiggly and subjective to be able to make solid decisions.

The ability to outcompete 1000s of dental students on a standardized exam shows, at least in some objective way, that the student you're getting is the best of the best. Note that theres not really any field out there, medical or otherwise, that doesn't have some sort of objective standardized exam to measure applicants against each other.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
armorshell said:
....Note that theres not really any field out there, medical or otherwise, that doesn't have some sort of objective standardized exam to measure applicants against each other.
Click to expand...

that's right. makes you wonder what the public will think of a discipline in which the licensing exams are pass/fail. so the powers that be think that NBDE step 1 was not intended to be an admissions test?:confused: well why aren't their allopathic medical peers thinking the same of te USMLE step 1?...

ammor, what do you think will happen to our cycle if this awefull rule becomes retroactive? PM me. we're taking it this summer but will we get a chance to apply to programs before this thing gets retroactive?
 
fightingspirit said:
that's right. makes you wonder what the public will think of a discipline in which the licensing exams are pass/fail. so the powers that be think that NBDE step 1 was not intended to be an admissions test?:confused: well why aren't their allopathic medical peers thinking the same of te USMLE step 1?...

ammor, what do you think will happen to our cycle if this awefull rule becomes retroactive? PM me. we're taking it this summer but will we get a chance to apply to programs before this thing gets retroactive?
Click to expand...

Yeah, we apply for programs in 2009 so they'll be getting our scores while they're still graded. Who knows what happens if we need to reapply, I suppose you could fax them copies of the sheet they send out to the test taker. :laugh:
 
ptrianon said:
I am currently busting my a** to do well on the boards and its "not fair" that future students won't have to, but seriously the kind of studying I am doing has no relevance whatsoever to being a good dentist/specialist and is a major waste of time. I agree that BS extracurriculars are extremely common but I don't see program directors not being able to see through that. In fact If I was a program director for a specialty program I would only look at serious research projects and disregard anything else because its just too easy to fluff. I don't think making the boards pass/fail is a complete solution, but it is a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

All of those sciences you have had to take and all of that stuff you are studying for boards is absolutley necessary if you want to be a doctor. If you want to be a tooth monkey or tech then no its not needed. Doctors command a premium price. Its difficult to become a doctor. The years of training and knowledge is what brings esteem, respect and ultimately a higher value to what we do. Doctors see a patient as a whole person, they understand how their treatment will affect the whole preson and how a persons diseases will affect their treatment. Thats what people are paying for. Techs and tooth monkeys only care about the little process that directly brings benefits to them, like making tons of cash for preping a bunch of teeth. Most patients can tell the difference between a tech and doctor. The doctor cares about them and has the ability to recognize and correct disease. A doctor even has the ability to recognize abnormalities outside of their specific specialty.

Too many have the mentality of the tech. You want to come in and learn the minumum sciences, learn how to prep a tooth and then go out and make tons of cash. You dont seem to have the intelligence to understand how this affects the value of our profession to the public. People are willing to pay a premium for something that they regard as difficult. They will be more likely to pay a premium when they have a great deal of respect for the person that they are paying and hold that person in high esteem. I am all for increasing the difficulty of dental school. I want their to be more indepth sciences. I want their to be a required residency after dental school. The court of public opinion is currently devaluing the doctor part of dentistry mainly because so many out their are not behaving like doctors. Expanded function auxilliaries and midlevel providors. These are all responses to what is deemed by the public as overvalued and easy to do.

Basically what I am saying is that you lazy suckers who just want things to be as easy as possible are only devaluing our proffession, opening up doors for encroachment into our proffesion, and hurting your ability to make money now and in the future. So stop crying about having to learn the anotomy of the leg or the microbiology of the colon. It can only help you and make you a better doctor. Sorry, it wont help you cut a better prep, but if thats all you care about then you should do this proffession and favor and go find a lab tech job.
 
QCkid said:
.....devaluing our proffession, opening up doors for encroachment into our proffesion, and hurting your ability to make money now and in the future. ....
Click to expand...

elaborate but without the angry tone please
 
Dr.Millisevert said:
However, it's not very clear though if it will also retroactively apply to reporting scores of those who sat the exam prior to 2010 as PASS after 2010. :confused:
Click to expand...
I would think they have to, even though many of my classmates argue they won't.

Consider this scenario, the year is 2011, you are on the admission committee of some post-grad program, and you have 2 applications sitting in front of you. You can only select one of the following candidates. The first candidate took the test prior to PASS/FAIL system and he/she scored 95 on the test. The second candidate part 1 score-card shows just a PASS (no score reported). Who do you pick? if you pick the first candidate, how would you know the second candidate didn't score 96 on the test?

It's common sense, if pre-2010 scores are not reset to PASS or FAIL, it will open more doors of unfair selection process.

my .50 cents!
 
Cold Front said:
I would think they have to, even though many of my classmates argue they won't.

Consider this scenario, the year is 2011, you are on the admission committee of some post-grad program, and you have 2 applications sitting in front of you. You can only select one of the following candidates. The first candidate took the test prior to PASS/FAIL system and he/she scored 95 on the test. The second candidate part 1 score-card shows just a PASS (no score reported). Who do you pick? if you pick the first candidate, how would you know the second candidate didn't score 96 on the test?

It's common sense, if pre-2010 scores are not reset to PASS or FAIL, it will open more doors of unfair selection process.

my .50 cents!
Click to expand...

I agree, but let me throw this out there.
To me, this all seems like a pretty big deal. I don't know about any of you, but I never heard a word about any of this from the administration/dean of my school. You would think with a change like this that there would be some information formally presented to dental students by their faculty!
Does anyone have any insight as to why this might be?
Has anyone in fact been spoken to by their respective administrations? If so...what did they say?
 
Too many have the mentality of the tech. You want to come in and learn the minumum sciences, learn how to prep a tooth and then go out and make tons of cash. You dont seem to have the intelligence to understand how this affects the value of our profession to the public. People are willing to pay a premium for something that they regard as difficult. They will be more likely to pay a premium when they have a great deal of respect for the person that they are paying and hold that person in high esteem. I am all for increasing the difficulty of dental school. I want their to be more indepth sciences. I want their to be a required residency after dental school. The court of public opinion is currently devaluing the doctor part of dentistry mainly because so many out their are not behaving like doctors. Expanded function auxilliaries and midlevel providors. These are all responses to what is deemed by the public as overvalued and easy to do.

Basically what I am saying is that you lazy suckers who just want things to be as easy as possible are only devaluing our proffession, opening up doors for encroachment into our proffesion, and hurting your ability to make money now and in the future. So stop crying about having to learn the anotomy of the leg or the microbiology of the colon. It can only help you and make you a better doctor. Sorry, it wont help you cut a better prep, but if thats all you care about then you should do this proffession and favor and go find a lab tech job.[/quote]


Here here. Very well put. I also think that dental education should be more astringent instead of becoming more and more watered down. It seems like dental schools just want to take students' tuition money and send them out with a subpar education. The rigor of our profession has become pathetically low, and it shows in how some dentla schools are taking away requirements and remediation for those that need a significantly higher amount of training before being thrown into the public as dentists. Instead, they are being handed passing grades and eventually diplomas without having truly earned them. Who suffers in this system? The public (the poor unsuspecting customers of these so-called dentists) and those of us who actually take our education seriously and want to be outstanding, highly educated and ethical dentists.

All this whole NB pass/fail mess will do is encourage more mediocrity. Why bother studying when we will all be on the same level, whether we truly know the material we were tested on or just enough to get a 75 passing grade? If they want to make the Boards P/F, then they should make the passing grade higher. but of course they won't. The deans don't want to be embarassed by their shcools having a higher rate of failure.

And why won't any single group take responsibility for this? A bunch of us talked to our student affairs dean and he said no body knew about this change and that the deans weren't aware it was going on. IF not the deans then who? Why can't we, the students, get a clear answer when we are the ones mostly affected by this?
 
Too many have the mentality of the tech. You want to come in and learn the minumum sciences, learn how to prep a tooth and then go out and make tons of cash. You dont seem to have the intelligence to understand how this affects the value of our profession to the public. People are willing to pay a premium for something that they regard as difficult. They will be more likely to pay a premium when they have a great deal of respect for the person that they are paying and hold that person in high esteem. I am all for increasing the difficulty of dental school. I want their to be more indepth sciences. I want their to be a required residency after dental school. The court of public opinion is currently devaluing the doctor part of dentistry mainly because so many out their are not behaving like doctors. Expanded function auxilliaries and midlevel providors. These are all responses to what is deemed by the public as overvalued and easy to do.

Basically what I am saying is that you lazy suckers who just want things to be as easy as possible are only devaluing our proffession, opening up doors for encroachment into our proffesion, and hurting your ability to make money now and in the future. So stop crying about having to learn the anotomy of the leg or the microbiology of the colon. It can only help you and make you a better doctor. Sorry, it wont help you cut a better prep, but if thats all you care about then you should do this proffession and favor and go find a lab tech job.
Click to expand...


Here here. Very well put. I also think that dental education should be more astringent instead of becoming more and more watered down. It seems like dental schools just want to take students' tuition money and send them out with a subpar education. The rigor of our profession has become pathetically low, and it shows in how some dentla schools are taking away requirements and remediation for those that need a significantly higher amount of training before being thrown into the public as dentists. Instead, they are being handed passing grades and eventually diplomas without having truly earned them. Who suffers in this system? The public (the poor unsuspecting customers of these so-called dentists) and those of us who actually take our education seriously and want to be outstanding, highly educated and ethical dentists.

All this whole NB pass/fail mess will do is encourage more mediocrity. Why bother studying when we will all be on the same level, whether we truly know the material we were tested on or just enough to get a 75 passing grade? If they want to make the Boards P/F, then they should make the passing grade higher. but of course they won't. The deans don't want to be embarassed by their shcools having a higher rate of failure.

And why won't any single group take responsibility for this? A bunch of us talked to our student affairs dean and he said no body knew about this change and that the deans weren't aware it was going on. IF not the deans then who? Why can't we, the students, get a clear answer when we are the ones mostly affected by this?[/quote]
 
shmoopie said:
And why won't any single group take responsibility for this? A bunch of us talked to our student affairs dean and he said no body knew about this change and that the deans weren't aware it was going on. IF not the deans then who? Why can't we, the students, get a clear answer when we are the ones mostly affected by this?
Click to expand...

Here are more details, in the Joint Commission's April newsletter. Scroll down to page 3.

http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/jcnde_enewsletter_april_08.pdf
 
Cold Front said:
It's common sense, if pre-2010 scores are not reset to PASS or FAIL, it will open more doors of unfair selection process.

my .50 cents!
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Makes sense... We'll see. :thumbup:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Dont some ortho programs already require GRE?
 
dddsmack said:
Dont some ortho programs already require GRE?
Click to expand...

Yeah, any program (could be perio, endo, ortho, pedo) that has an M.S. associated with a graduate school. When you apply to the program, you also apply separately to the graduate school and they require it for admission.
 
I don't know about other specialty programs, but I could see this being the catalyst that causes OMFS programs to require USMLE Step I prior to applying to weed out applications.
 
Squished Rat said:
I don't know about other specialty programs, but I could see this being the catalyst that causes OMFS programs to require USMLE Step I prior to applying to weed out applications.
Click to expand...

Cept you cant sit that unless you're enrolled in medical school already.
 
armorshell said:
All the material so far makes it seem that the change will be retroactive, so after the date everythingg will be reported as pass/fail
Click to expand...

Armor,
what source are you noting when saying it will be retroactive per Jan 2010? I will be graduating in May 2011, potentially applying to residencies at the END of 2010...so potentially my NBDE1 taken next winter/spring (and were scored) may not be considered/reportable?

Please note supporting literature / names of administration stating such things.

CZ
 
cryptozoologist said:
Armor,
what source are you noting when saying it will be retroactive per Jan 2010? I will be graduating in May 2011, potentially applying to residencies at the END of 2010...so potentially my NBDE1 taken next winter/spring (and were scored) may not be considered/reportable?
Click to expand...

I think it's speculation at this point, but from the way they word it, it looks like it could be retroactive. Check out the link I posted above; here's a quote from the Joint Commission's newsletter:

Beginning January 1, 2010, candidate performance will be reported to candidates, state boards, and dental schools only as pass or fail. Standard scores will no longer be developed or reported.

For the sake of the class of 2011, they should make it clear what's going to happen with your scores. People are going to be pretty upset if they bust their behinds for a number only to have it turn into a pass.
 
....at that point, one has to wonder what happens in two to three years when it's clearly a pass/fail report. If someone applies for ortho/OS/etc. who was in the army for instance, and took their boards when it was numerically scored, and they are now applying with the graduating students, will the older student's score be reported as a number, or assuming they passed, their report will now sent out as simply a pass??....
 
I e-mailed the ADA, here's the response:

"Any examination for which a numeric score was given will always be reported as a numeric score. If you have any further questions please call us at 1-800-232-1694."

That's good news.
 
so I just called that 1-800 number, and spoke with a rep who explained to me that any score that was reported as a number will stay that way. I then asked him how that will work in the case that a number grade and a pass grade are presented to a program at the same time (ie. class of 2011 applying a year later)
to which he responded that by then eventhough you will be reporting your numerical score, the programs will have had to come up with a new way of evaluating applicants because they will be getting pass/fail grades from applicants. This being the case he said that they will probably not consider your score even if you report it, thus rectifying the "numerical/pass/fail" discrepincy that may present itself as in the above mentioned scenario.
 
The Don said:
so I just called that 1-800 number, and spoke with a rep who explained to me that any score that was reported as a number will stay that way. I then asked him how that will work in the case that a number grade and a pass grade are presented to a program at the same time (ie. class of 2011 applying a year later)
to which he responded that by then eventhough you will be reporting your numerical score, the programs will have had to come up with a new way of evaluating applicants because they will be getting pass/fail grades from applicants. This being the case he said that they will probably not consider your score even if you report it, thus rectifying the "numerical/pass/fail" discrepincy that may present itself as in the above mentioned scenario.
Click to expand...


yep, same here:
cz

I received your email. In answer to your question, anyone testing before January 1, 2010, will receive a numeric score. That score will be maintained on your record and will be reported to testing agencies, state boards, etc., upon request. Anyone testing on or after January 1, 2010 will receive a Pass/Fail score.

I hope this helps to clarify the issue.
Thank you!
Keely M. Brennan [email protected]
Coordinator, Client Support Services
Department of Testing Services
312.440.4650
 
The Don said:
so I just called that 1-800 number, and spoke with a rep who explained to me that any score that was reported as a number will stay that way. I then asked him how that will work in the case that a number grade and a pass grade are presented to a program at the same time (ie. class of 2011 applying a year later)
to which he responded that by then eventhough you will be reporting your numerical score, the programs will have had to come up with a new way of evaluating applicants because they will be getting pass/fail grades from applicants. This being the case he said that they will probably not consider your score even if you report it, thus rectifying the "numerical/pass/fail" discrepincy that may present itself as in the above mentioned scenario.
Click to expand...

I know there has been a lot of guessing and speculation, but has anyone talked to any program directors to see what the "new way of evaluating applicants" might entail?
 
The Don said:
the programs will have had to come up with a new way of evaluating applicants because they will be getting pass/fail grades from applicants. This being the case he said that they will probably not consider your score even if you report it, thus rectifying the "numerical/pass/fail" discrepincy that may present itself as in the above mentioned scenario.
Click to expand...


so for the people with good numerical board scores, when is the latest you should apply to PG programs?
 
The Don said:
so I just called that 1-800 number, and spoke with a rep who explained to me that any score that was reported as a number will stay that way. I then asked him how that will work in the case that a number grade and a pass grade are presented to a program at the same time (ie. class of 2011 applying a year later)
to which he responded that by then eventhough you will be reporting your numerical score, the programs will have had to come up with a new way of evaluating applicants because they will be getting pass/fail grades from applicants. This being the case he said that they will probably not consider your score even if you report it, thus rectifying the "numerical/pass/fail" discrepincy that may present itself as in the above mentioned scenario.
Click to expand...

IMO, I think that in this transition period from numbers/pass/fail to just pass/fail there is going to be some hosing going on. I have a hard time believing that if programs receive both types of score reports, they will not consider the numbers if they are presented on the CV and/or score report. How will they handle (fairly) the schools that take Part I after DSI (in 2009 having a score) while another school takes it after DSII (in 2010 P/F) and they apply for post-docs at the same time? As human beings, we are subject to bias and this would be a major one for the competitive specialties (at least while both report types are mingling in the apps). I'm sure things will settle down after a couple years following the change, but I foresee a bumpy ride when the change occurs (especially the 2011 cycle). Just my thoughts and I really do hope this gets sorted out for all you guys/gals...
 
Hysteria24 said:
I know there has been a lot of guessing and speculation, but has anyone talked to any program directors to see what the "new way of evaluating applicants" might entail?
Click to expand...

I asked the assistant director at Highland what they would do with P/F boards.

He:
A. Hadn't heard about the change
B. Said something along the lines of "This is terrible, and I have no idea what we would do."
 
Wayne Coronado said:
IMO, I think that in this transition period from numbers/pass/fail to just pass/fail there is going to be some hosing going on. I have a hard time believing that if programs receive both types of score reports, they will not consider the numbers if they are presented on the CV and/or score report. How will they handle (fairly) the schools that take Part I after DSI (in 2009 having a score) while another school takes it after DSII (in 2010 P/F) and they apply for post-docs at the same time? As human beings, we are subject to bias and this would be a major one for the competitive specialties (at least while both report types are mingling in the apps). I'm sure things will settle down after a couple years following the change, but I foresee a bumpy ride when the change occurs (especially the 2011 cycle). Just my thoughts and I really do hope this gets sorted out for all you guys/gals...
Click to expand...

Upon more thought, I don't think this will affect any class but 2011...those that take part 1 AFTER jan 1 2010 won't be in the 2011 cycle unless they are unmatched prior applicants (even those that take first boards after year 1...they will be 2012 app cycle). those unmatched applicants exist but it's not a big number. those from post-DS1 first board schools will still have pre-jan 1 2010 scored apps...so they are the same as post DSII first board school apps.

and if applicants (of 2011 cycle) don't match, they'll have NO opportunity to improve their scores for next cycle because all subsequent part 1 retakes will be "P/F"....and they already passed...so their app would only change by what they did that year. hard to say that's an advantage as ANYONE that doesn't match in any app year has the same opportunity downstream of their non-match event...this change simply removes the ability to improve your app with a better part 1 score. at least for the CO2011. course the CO2012 has no idea because they are more worried about 'can i wear pink scrubs in dental school?' right now than $hit like this.

CZ
 
cryptozoologist said:
Upon more thought, I don't think this will affect any class but 2011...those that take part 1 AFTER jan 1 2010 won't be in the 2011 cycle unless they are unmatched prior applicants (even those that take first boards after year 1...they will be 2012 app cycle). those unmatched applicants exist but it's not a big number. those from post-DS1 first board schools will still have pre-jan 1 2010 scored apps...so they are the same as post DSII first board school apps.

and if applicants (of 2011 cycle) don't match, they'll have NO opportunity to improve their scores for next cycle because all subsequent part 1 retakes will be "P/F"....and they already passed...so their app would only change by what they did that year. hard to say that's an advantage as ANYONE that doesn't match in any app year has the same opportunity downstream of their non-match event...this change simply removes the ability to improve your app with a better part 1 score. at least for the CO2011. course the CO2012 has no idea because they are more worried about 'can i wear pink scrubs in dental school?' right now than $hit like this.

CZ
Click to expand...

I hope I'm not confused here. How will those who take Part I after Jan. 1, 2010 (meaning the following summer) not be in the 2011 application cycle if they took it following DSII?
 
armorshell said:
I asked the assistant director at Highland what they would do with P/F boards.

He:
A. Hadn't heard about the change
B. Said something along the lines of "This is terrible, and I have no idea what we would do."
Click to expand...

Again, how is a program director supposed to evaluate an applicant with a "PASS" in NBDE I and from a pass/fail dental school?

By the way.... does anyone know the percentage of dental schools that don't have classrank or gpas.. and only grade on Pass/Fail basis? I think it is quite a few.


Maybe the ADA/CODA (or specialty associations: AAOMS, AAO, etc) should write a memo about the situation and send it out to all program directors informing them of the change and suggesting alternative options. Otherwise.. there will be a big shock come Sept 2010. :)
 
Wayne Coronado said:
I hope I'm not confused here. How will those who take Part I after Jan. 1, 2010 (meaning the following summer) not be in the 2011 application cycle if they took it following DSII?
Click to expand...

CO2011 DS1 boards will already have a 'scored report' for 2011 cycle. (ie 2011 cycle meaning that's when you start...apply late summer/fall 2010)
CO2011 DS11 boards will already have a scored report too...most schools dictate that you MUST pass first boards to get into clinic, so they'd be taking it in summer 2009. (DS1 ~ F2007/W2008, DS2 ~ F2008/W2009) If you WAIT to take it til winter 2010, you won't be able to get into clinic in fall 2009 for third year activities at UNC, thus you won't graduate on time, thus you won't be part of the 2011 app cycle because you won't be able to start those programs due to your not graduating..

I assume it's the same at other schools.
 
cryptozoologist said:
course the CO2012 has no idea because they are more worried about 'can i wear pink scrubs in dental school?' right now than $hit like this.
Click to expand...

Haha... I'm c/o 2012 and although I'm still wondering what color scrubs I'll be wearing, I'm still keeping an eye on this. No need for me to bust my hump the first two years on overkill studying for the boards if I will just get a P/F score.

That's why I'm looking to see what program directors will do for evaluation. This way I can direct my extra energies in that direction. You guys know you need a killer score to move on to specialty. Us 2012'ers (who take boards in the second year, ie 2010) have no clue what it will take now.

I know I'm getting ahead of myself since I still haven't hit the rigors of d-school, but it never hurts to plan ahead in order to keep the specializing door open.



.
 
Hysteria24 said:
Haha... I'm c/o 2012 and although I'm still wondering what color scrubs I'll be wearing, I'm still keeping an eye on this. No need for me to but my hump the first two years on overkill studying for the boards if I will just get a P/F score.

That's why I'm looking to see what program directors will do for evaluation. This way I can direct my extra energies in that direction. You guys know you need a killer score to move on to specialty. Us 2012'ers (who take boards in the second year, ie 2010) have no clue what it will take now.

I know I'm getting ahead of myself since I still haven't hit the rigors of d-school, but it never hurts to plan ahead in order to keep the specializing door open.
Click to expand...

Boy am I glad that I chose Pacific!:laugh:
 
Wayne Coronado said:
As human beings, we are subject to bias and this would be a major one for the competitive specialties (at least while both report types are mingling in the apps).
Click to expand...
I agree. The post-grad committee are already pre-conditioned to choosing applicants with competitive scores. Initially, I would think, the programs will naturally play safe and be bias towards candidates who have (good) old scores, over students who have just PASS scores. It could take sometime to have a solid system to differentiate candidates from each other.
 
cryptozoologist said:
CO2011 DS1 boards will already have a 'scored report' for 2011 cycle. (ie 2011 cycle meaning that's when you start...apply late summer/fall 2010)
CO2011 DS11 boards will already have a scored report too...most schools dictate that you MUST pass first boards to get into clinic, so they'd be taking it in summer 2009. (DS1 ~ F2007/W2008, DS2 ~ F2008/W2009) If you WAIT to take it til winter 2010, you won't be able to get into clinic in fall 2009 for third year activities at UNC, thus you won't graduate on time, thus you won't be part of the 2011 app cycle because you won't be able to start those programs due to your not graduating..

I assume it's the same at other schools.
Click to expand...

Semantics, my bad. When I said 2011 cycle, I was referring to the year at the time of application. The 2012 cycle (year of post-doc program start) is what I was driving at, so sorry for the confusion. I cannot speak for other schools, but we were treating patients in clinic before taking Part I. I think passing Part I before clinic is more the standard in a 2+2 dental curriculum (2 years didactics, 2 years clinic). That would make sense for these schools; however, that would not be practical at ours considering that we started seeing patients Fall DSII and had yet to finish micro or gen path.
 
QCkid said:
All of those sciences you have had to take and all of that stuff you are studying for boards is absolutley necessary if you want to be a doctor. If you want to be a tooth monkey or tech then no its not needed. Doctors command a premium price. Its difficult to become a doctor. The years of training and knowledge is what brings esteem, respect and ultimately a higher value to what we do. Doctors see a patient as a whole person, they understand how their treatment will affect the whole preson and how a persons diseases will affect their treatment. Thats what people are paying for. Techs and tooth monkeys only care about the little process that directly brings benefits to them, like making tons of cash for preping a bunch of teeth. Most patients can tell the difference between a tech and doctor. The doctor cares about them and has the ability to recognize and correct disease. A doctor even has the ability to recognize abnormalities outside of their specific specialty.

Too many have the mentality of the tech. You want to come in and learn the minumum sciences, learn how to prep a tooth and then go out and make tons of cash. You dont seem to have the intelligence to understand how this affects the value of our profession to the public. People are willing to pay a premium for something that they regard as difficult. They will be more likely to pay a premium when they have a great deal of respect for the person that they are paying and hold that person in high esteem. I am all for increasing the difficulty of dental school. I want their to be more indepth sciences. I want their to be a required residency after dental school. The court of public opinion is currently devaluing the doctor part of dentistry mainly because so many out their are not behaving like doctors. Expanded function auxilliaries and midlevel providors. These are all responses to what is deemed by the public as overvalued and easy to do.

Basically what I am saying is that you lazy suckers who just want things to be as easy as possible are only devaluing our proffession, opening up doors for encroachment into our proffesion, and hurting your ability to make money now and in the future. So stop crying about having to learn the anotomy of the leg or the microbiology of the colon. It can only help you and make you a better doctor. Sorry, it wont help you cut a better prep, but if thats all you care about then you should do this proffession and favor and go find a lab tech job.
Click to expand...

I made a third post before you posted this. In any case I didn't imply that dental school should be easier, just that excessive board study is not productive. Your patient population will never know or care if your board scores were reported as pass fail as long as you passed. Also, making the boards pass fail does not make them easier to pass, it just changes the way they are reported, and only affects the way post graduate programs can evaluate students. All that garble about devaluing of and encroachment upon the profession is important but totally unrelated.

I would also like to let you know that I rank at the top of my class and just got a very respectable board score so I don't lack intelligence and certainly am not lazy. Additionally you spelled "absolutely", "prepping", "auxiliaries" "minimum", "providers", "anatomy" and "profession" wrong. Your future patients will judge you on your ability to spell.
 
Note that the P/F boards only matters if you want to specialize. We have a saying at Pacific. "UCSF is P/F for everyone, Pacific is P/F for everyone who doesn't want to specialize."

Think about it.
 
ptrianon said:
I made a third post before you posted this. In any case I didn't imply that dental school should be easier, just that excessive board study is not productive. Your patient population will never know or care if your board scores were reported as pass fail as long as you passed. Also, making the boards pass fail does not make them easier to pass, it just changes the way they are reported, and only affects the way post graduate programs can evaluate students. All that garble about devaluing of and encroachment upon the profession is important but totally unrelated.

I would also like to let you know that I rank at the top of my class and just got a very respectable board score so I don't lack intelligence and certainly am not lazy. Additionally you spelled "absolutely", "prepping", "auxiliaries" "minimum", "providers", "anatomy" and "profession" wrong. Your future patients will judge you on your ability to spell.
Click to expand...

Ya, thanks for running my post through spell checker. This is just a discussion board, not a paper being submited for publication. Patients judge doctors on their spelling? Seriously, can you even read what most doctors write let alone tell if their spelling is correct? My post was about learning, knowledge and hard work. Studying for boards is all part of that. Looking back, I think it definitely helps to reinforce everything you learn the first two years. Its also represents extra hurdles to becoming a dentist which overall helps to seperate the wheat from the chaff in a small degree. Which in the long run has a small effect at increasing the quality of the dentists practicing and therefore the quality of their work. Certainly the other side of the coin, making everything easier and creating fewer hurdles does not serve this purpose.
 
QCkid said:
Ya, thanks for running my post through spell checker. This is just a discussion board, not a paper being submited for publication. Patients judge doctors on their spelling? Seriously, can you even read what most doctors write let alone tell if their spelling is correct? My post was about learning, knowledge and hard work. Studying for boards is all part of that. Looking back, I think it definitely helps to reinforce everything you learn the first two years. Its also represents extra hurdles to becoming a dentist which overall helps to seperate the wheat from the chaff in a small degree. Which in the long run has a small effect at increasing the quality of the dentists practicing and therefore the quality of their work. Certainly the other side of the coin, making everything easier and creating fewer hurdles does not serve this purpose.
Click to expand...

They're not making anything easier. You'll still need a 75% to pass the boards.
 
QCkid said:
Ya, thanks for running my post through spell checker. This is just a discussion board, not a paper being submited for publication. Patients judge doctors on their spelling? Seriously, can you even read what most doctors write let alone tell if their spelling is correct? My post was about learning, knowledge and hard work. Studying for boards is all part of that. Looking back, I think it definitely helps to reinforce everything you learn the first two years. Its also represents extra hurdles to becoming a dentist which overall helps to seperate the wheat from the chaff in a small degree. Which in the long run has a small effect at increasing the quality of the dentists practicing and therefore the quality of their work. Certainly the other side of the coin, making everything easier and creating fewer hurdles does not serve this purpose.
Click to expand...

Again, the boards haven't gotten easier, in fact I have heard that more people are failing on the new format (just hearsay though). Knocking your spelling was a low blow for an online forum but to be fair you did insult my intelligence and work ethic. The trend among dental schools has been to increase academic requirements and decrease the amount of lab work students are required to do. Dental schools have been getting more rigorous and will probably continue to do so.
 
Hey guys,

Just a quick question:

I'm in class of 2011. Suppose I wrote Part I December 2008, or early 2009, I'd still write Part 1, where I will receive a grade.
This I understand.

But, If I write Part 2 in 2010, or even 2011, my scores would only be a pass/fail.

I know that Part II doesn't play a significant role, but I was wondering what some of you were thinking about this matter.
 
I'm going to have to ask PD at my school on how they will deal with this. No sense in posting to death at this point over this.
 
At least residency programs will still ask for pictures with the apps.

For those of you who look like mutants, best of luck. Without that 95 you're gonna lose out to the hot blonde with big boobs. :thumbup:
 
Wayne Coronado said:
Semantics, my bad. When I said 2011 cycle, I was referring to the year at the time of application. The 2012 cycle (year of post-doc program start) is what I was driving at, so sorry for the confusion. I cannot speak for other schools, but we were treating patients in clinic before taking Part I. I think passing Part I before clinic is more the standard in a 2+2 dental curriculum (2 years didactics, 2 years clinic). That would make sense for these schools; however, that would not be practical at ours considering that we started seeing patients Fall DSII and had yet to finish micro or gen path.
Click to expand...

Sorry, we also see patients DSII, conservative restorations, cleanings, and so forth...when i say 'get into clinics' are a prereque for moving forward, I mean that as you transition to DSIII and are for the most part 100% in clinic, you can't go forward until those boards are passed....but we still do patient stuff in summer DSI and all DSII.
 
mustang99 said:
Hey guys,

Just a quick question:
I'm in class of 2011. Suppose I wrote Part I December 2008, or early 2009, I'd still write Part 1, where I will receive a grade.
This I understand.
But, If I write Part 2 in 2010, or even 2011, my scores would only be a pass/fail.
I know that Part II doesn't play a significant role, but I was wondering what some of you were thinking about this matter.
Click to expand...

correct. but part II doesn't really matter for specialzing because you're applied/accepted before you take them...so they really are P/F for everyone...maybe ENDO is the only one that really cares about II boards...becuase they like to see people that have practiced for a while...but that is pure speculation.
 
i think they should develop an entirely new test, call it the GDAT (Graduate Dental Admissions Test). None of the other existing tests would be adequate as a measuring stick. Don't ask me what should be on it, but it should definitely be a reflection on what you have learned in d-school, as well as analyzing your ability to think. Combine that with an applicant's ECs, and I think that would make a reasonable way to compare applicants.

Personally, I never have a problem with standardized tests, and if I've already studied my butt off for the boards, what's another test?
 
lemoncurry said:
Don't ask me what should be on it, but it should definitely be a reflection on what you have learned in d-school...
Click to expand...

Hmmm... A test that reflects what you learned in dental school and that could be used to separate the best of the best for specialty. I know! How about the NBDE 1. :rolleyes:

They had it exactly as you describe, for for some reason opted to abandon it. I just don't understand....

And the whole second test thing just does not sound fun. At least by putting all the work into part 1 guaranteed a passing score which is necessary by law anyways to become a dentist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

G
Country club OMFS programs; what does it mean
Replies
9
Views
3K
nade0016
nade0016
StarENDO1
*****Official PASS 2025 Endodontic Residency Interviews/Information***
Replies
38
Views
5K
dentgeek101
D
M
****Official PASS 2025 Dental Anesthesiology Residency Interviews/Information~
Replies
12
Views
2K
treesandsteeps
T
S
Starting PASS Application Before Cycle Opens?
Replies
1
Views
316
veryhappylabrador
veryhappylabrador
Denteal
**Official PASS 2024 Dental Anesthesiology Residency Interviews/Information
2
Replies
53
Views
12K
medddental
M
Top