Also, I know this is a big can of worms I'm opening, but when you speak of admissions standards being high across the board, does that include Howard and Meharry? Historically, their average statistics for enrollees are lower than almost every other school. So would Touro be considered better, worse, or on the same level as these two schools?
Most people realistically fall on either side of this spectrum. Those that typically push for diversity are those that benefited from diversity; others are
labeled as bitter just because they don't agree with the initiative, when in fact you simply may view the career differently. I firmly believe initiatives from Howard and Meharry, in their argument to "increase diversity" in the dental industry, have paved the way for new openings of schools like Touro (which are not established brands, again) and led to the assembly-line mentality of pumping out dentists who did not adhere to similar qualifications coming in. The reality is that instead of keeping academic standards high even for dental schools aiming to increase URMs in the workforce - a noble and worthy initiativem because yes, we do need that - they keep the statistical floor lower than most schools. Instead of inspiring young URMs to achieve 20 DAT's and a 3.5 sGPA and
mandate those as the competitive standard, they breed the narrative that it's acceptable for an 18 AA and a 3.0 sGPA, simply because the demographic average in play yields those numbers, to be competitive for admission. That's not okay.
New schools opening like Touro are no different IMO than HBS dental schools aiming to push diversity. At a certain point in every application cycle, those that didn't get in, typically weren't admitted for a reason. It's certainly healthy to have a
few dental students below cookie cutter 20 DAT and 3.5 sGPA in dental classes, but it isn't proactive to take swarms of that profile simply because "we have to do more to accommodate others in this industry." That ruins the field.
Ask any dental student currently in school, and they'll almost
always argue that we should be (1) admitting less students and (2) ending the embracing of average profiles just because they're demographically diverse.
Dentistry to me is a privilege that you earn. If you've fallen behind in your profile in undergrad, there are steps and measures you can take to redeem yourself - it will take more years, more money, and more time than the average acceptee, but that journey itself makes you better off as a human and a future student. You actually find within yourself whether this is the right career path.
Schools like Touro, Meharry, and Howard undermine all these initiatives.
And again, back to quality education brands...
You cannot argue that Touro would have a quality dental education for new dentists. If 99% of people have never heard of a school like Touro (because it has no brand), and Touro opens a dental school, then yes, it is safer to assume that the quality of education there is likely less over an established school creating one. That reputation comes with the territory of being a quality university - you trust administrators and faculty to make better decisions with their students, their infrastructure, and curriculum.
So, because the dental field (1) doesn't need more dentists right now that are currently graduating year-to-year and (2) would like to keep their standards as high as possible, there is
nothing to suggest right now that Touro hasn't been created for anything other than pumping out new dentists. A CODA approved designation simply means the absolute minimum tools were and are in place to teach dentistry
if the school chooses to, and even that approval is still spending.
