Best Schools for Specializing

[armorshell]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Yes, fine details usually matter. Kinda like 77 respondants and not 101 if you read the * at the end.

I don't know if you've noticed but when you make an argument, there'll usually be numerous interpretations, most of which weren't even what the author said. Kinda like how your SAT teacher said to not use personal background when reading the reading passages, because you may impose your own claim and not the author's...but students go ahead and do it anyway. I try to avoid making any sort of academic claim, because once I do, I have to filter thru the responses...what did this person understand correctly, and what did he superimpose based on his own background. It always gets into a big mess.

Everybody on here does it. I knew you'd do it, so I was completely anticipating some of the responses you gave. A part of me was just f'n around with you. Btw, the weather's awesome outside. You should enjoy it. Oh that's right...you got lab later tonight.

I absolutely wasn't expecting your arguments to be about some petty, pointless detail like having too many 'y's' in a wayyyyyyy. I imagine it's pretty common for someone in your position, who can't adequately defend their argument (or just feels that way) to deflect onto something unrelated and pointless, like a minor grammar issue or something irrelevant about the weather.

 

[armorshell]

I thought that too, until I stopped to think about a few rules in statistics. That survey got enough responders to be considered statistically representative. I may or may not want that number to be representative, but it's supposed to be.

You should know that that only works if your statistical analysis uses random sampling, which this survey obviously doesn't. A survey with voluntary return tryingg to sample an entire body (a whole class) introduces bias.

 

[armorshell]

I said they "don't quite qualify for many" programs, not that they're barred absolutely. I chose those words, because I looked through a good many post-grad programs sites and found many that said they don't accept from outside the US.

For obvious reasons, I'm not too keen on people misrepresenting my school, putting it in a negative light. For the same reason you appear everytime someone pees on UoP.

If you'd actually read the thread and not just assumed the worst, you'd have seen I was using UCSF as an example (because of it's proximity it works well, and I know several students) and I specifically mentioned that I think that year of specialty statistics meant nothing, and was probably a pointless blip, mostly driven by student choice.

Dude. Reading Comprehension!

 

[armorshell]

Actually, if you look "ignorant" up in a dictionary, the definitions are as follows:
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

Seems to me you fit the definition rather perfectly!

Hey, I'm not trying to call you out, I'm simply trying to make you realize that you shouldn't knock something before you completely understand what it is all about. I'm also trying to point out that your obvious lack of professionalism and immaturity suggests that you are probably disgruntled thinking about all your fellow classmates that are chomping at the bit to get into an ortho residency while you are trying to be different, and in turn decide to bad mouth it. I would never say that perio, prosth, etc is "boring as F...." even though I do not enjoy them, I can see how others may be fascinated by those fields. Grow up and stop turning the conversations into grammatical study sessions because all you do is make yourself look foolish.

I actually used to think ortho was "boring as f", and I'm pretty sure I have posted to that effect on this site at some point. That was until I took a few ortho classes and found out it's actually pretty interesting.

 

[UCSF2012]

Actually, if you look "ignorant" up in a dictionary, the definitions are as follows:
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

Seems to me you fit the definition rather perfectly!

Hey, I'm not trying to call you out, I'm simply trying to make you realize that you shouldn't knock something before you completely understand what it is all about. I'm also trying to point out that your obvious lack of professionalism and immaturity suggests that you are probably disgruntled thinking about all your fellow classmates that are chomping at the bit to get into an ortho residency while you are trying to be different, and in turn decide to bad mouth it. I would never say that perio, prosth, etc is "boring as F...." even though I do not enjoy them, I can see how others may be fascinated by those fields. Grow up and stop turning the conversations into grammatical study sessions because all you do is make yourself look foolish.

Look through that post you branded at ignorant and you'll see there was nothing uninformed about it. Judgemental, possibly, but not without knowledge. And do you not see the hyprocracy of everything you said? And numerous places where you try to put words into peoples' mouths, and I don't feel like defending myself based on someone's emotional tantrum.

 

[armorshell]

Look through that post you branded at ignorant and you'll see there was nothing uninformed about it. Judgemental, possibly, but not without knowledge. And do you not see the hyprocracy of everything you said? And numerous places where you try to put words into peoples' mouths, and I don't feel like defending myself based on someone's emotional tantrum.

Note that "judgemental" and ignorant are not mutually exclusive terms. Plus, he's probably just not to keen on people misrepresenting the specialty he wants to pursue, putting it in a negative light. Same reason you appear every time someone pees on UCSF.

Talk about "hypocracy."

Yes, I just brought up a minor grammar issue, which is irrelevant to the discussion. ZING!

 

[UCSF2012]

Note that "judgemental" and ignorant are not mutually exclusive terms. Plus, he's probably just not to keen on people misrepresenting the specialty he wants to pursue, putting it in a negative light. Same reason you appear every time someone pees on UCSF.

Talk about "hypocrisy."

We can have our fight some other time. It's gotten hard to distinguish friendly sarcasm from hostility at this point in the thread. I am allowed an ability to have opinions on various fields. Nothing stated went beyond mere opinions.

 

[armorshell]

We can have our fight some other time. It's gotten hard to distinguish friendly sarcasm from hostility at this point in the thread. I am allowed an ability to have opinions on various fields. Nothing stated went beyond mere opinions.

As you've proven throughout this thread, opinion status doesn't protect what you say from criticism.

 

[UCSF2012]

As you've proven throughout this thread, opinion status doesn't protect what you say from criticism.

Making an opinion doesn't protect what you say from criticism....sounds big and even insightful. sounds like it'd make a good proverb. I'm gonna put that in a fortune cookie.

 

[somethinpositiv]

Absolutely false. For the last year they published data, Pacific had a better specialization rate than UCSF and a significantly higher % of people accepted into OMFS and ortho residencies. Our specialization rate is usually unremarkable if not slightly above average (12-15% not including GPR/AEGD)

touché. you're probably right about UoP.

though I still say that all else being equal, that the name of the school would matter. Doesn't matter to me, I'm not specializing, but I think it does make a difference to some small degree. However, if the candidate not from a big name school has a slightly better resume, I think they would be chosen every time.

 

[somethinpositiv]

I think that year of specialty statistics meant nothing, and was probably a pointless blip

42.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.

60% of the time, it works.. every time.

 

[dentstd]

Absolutely false. For the last year they published data, Pacific had a better specialization rate than UCSF and a significantly higher % of people accepted into OMFS and ortho residencies. Our specialization rate is usually unremarkable if not slightly above average (12-15% not including GPR/AEGD)

So where is this published data on pacific "specialization" rate? Everthing I've ever heard about UoP came from its students, and I wasn't able to find a trace of relevant information. Not a single document to back anything up. Lots of people on this thread seem to accept your information without questioning it. You've made lots of claims in the past, but I wonder if it's a case of UoP self-promoting. I just can't get over the most basic of all information: UoP students have close to literally no time to study. Dental students all over the country are struggling to manage with the 9-5 schedule they have, which effectively leaves about 4-5 hours to study every weekday. UoP students have 1-2.

 

[hAppY010]

The Best Training School provides specialized training for your business. Our Senior Trainers are able to come to your location, meet with your people, and train them in the areas of Indoor Air Quality, Drinking Water, and/or Mold in a way that will enhance the professionalism of your staff.




Ayt?

 

[dentstd]

Just like I thought. This UoP having as many specialty-bound students as UCSF talk is a load of crap. It's the school most known for producing GP's, because it's very difficult to do well on the NBDE when you don't have time to study. The ADA guide indicated that the class of 2010's high DAT score was a 23, the same year of our Mr. 25.

 

[SHC1984]

Just like I thought. This UoP having as many specialty-bound students as UCSF talk is a load of crap. It's the school most known for producing GP's, because it's very difficult to do well on the NBDE when you don't have time to study. The ADA guide indicated that the class of 2010's high DAT score was a 23, the same year of our Mr. 25.

😱

 

[AggieDDS]

Just like I thought. This UoP having as many specialty-bound students as UCSF talk is a load of crap. It's the school most known for producing GP's, because it's very difficult to do well on the NBDE when you don't have time to study. The ADA guide indicated that the class of 2010's high DAT score was a 23, the same year of our Mr. 25.

pwnt.😎

 

[achilles2]

Just like I thought. This UoP having as many specialty-bound students as UCSF talk is a load of crap. It's the school most known for producing GP's, because it's very difficult to do well on the NBDE when you don't have time to study. The ADA guide indicated that the class of 2010's high DAT score was a 23, the same year of our Mr. 25.

party crasher

 

[armorshell]

Just like I thought. This UoP having as many specialty-bound students as UCSF talk is a load of crap. It's the school most known for producing GP's, because it's very difficult to do well on the NBDE when you don't have time to study. The ADA guide indicated that the class of 2010's high DAT score was a 23, the same year of our Mr. 25.

Thanks for telling me, I'll make sure to let the admissions office know there was an error in that edition. I doubt the ADA will print a redaction or anything but they probably should know.

I also doubt my 25AA was the highest score in my class that year either, and I know multiple people in my little sim lab row (1/12th of the class) who had 24AAs.

Additionally, I threw my DAT score report away a while ago, but ATM I'm ordering another one since apparently SDN demands it *sigh*

 

[armorshell]

So where is this published data on pacific "specialization" rate? Everthing I've ever heard about UoP came from its students, and I wasn't able to find a trace of relevant information. Not a single document to back anything up. Lots of people on this thread seem to accept your information without questioning it. You've made lots of claims in the past, but I wonder if it's a case of UoP self-promoting. I just can't get over the most basic of all information: UoP students have close to literally no time to study. Dental students all over the country are struggling to manage with the 9-5 schedule they have, which effectively leaves about 4-5 hours to study every weekday. UoP students have 1-2.

I have no reason to self promote UoP. They're not paying me (much the opposite), and all I'm trying to do is provide an alternative viewpoint, which I (and appartenly many others) believe is valid. I'm sorry that my opinions don't mesh well with yours, but that sounds like a "you" problem.

If you'd read the thread, you'd know that I said that was one year of data, and that I also thought that it didn't mean anything. Nowhere did I say I think Pacific has more specialty bound students than UCSF, and I actually think (and repeat ad nauseum) the exact opposite. Pacific prints a report of all the students continuing into residencies every year, which isn't posted publicly because it includes personal information about the students. Why they don't post it online and anonymous I don't know, because there's nothing particularly bad about it.

I have plenty of time to study for boards, regardless of what you say. Our schedule 1st year is maniacal at best, but second year (boards year) isn't nearly as bad. I get in at least 90 minutes on your average school day for boards studying, more on weekends.

 

[armorshell]

Just like I thought. This UoP having as many specialty-bound students as UCSF talk is a load of crap. It's the school most known for producing GP's, because it's very difficult to do well on the NBDE when you don't have time to study. The ADA guide indicated that the class of 2010's high DAT score was a 23, the same year of our Mr. 25.

I'll bump the thread for you when I have it scanned. That should be embarrassing, nothing like calling someone out and being absolutely wrong .

 

[dentstd]

A score report's the easiest thing to forge. I can do one too. No complex symbols. Just a bunch of words with numbers here and there. Let's do a competition. Who on here can forge the best looking score report?

 

[armorshell]

A score report's the easiest thing to forge. I can do one too. No complex symbols. Just a bunch of words with numbers here and there. Let's do a competition. Who on here can forge the best looking score report?

I think I just got pre-accused of forging a score report, one I clearly just showed evidence of ordering. Seems like your grasping at straws to save face. Feel free to CYA however you want though, I think seeing an official score report should be enough to show the majority of SDN that you're posting out of your a$!.

 

[armorshell]

Just like I thought. This UoP having as many specialty-bound students as UCSF talk is a load of crap. It's the school most known for producing GP's, because it's very difficult to do well on the NBDE when you don't have time to study. The ADA guide indicated that the class of 2010's high DAT score was a 23, the same year of our Mr. 25.

Just to further demonstrate how much garbage you're sowing across this board, the reported highest DAT score for Columbia's class of 2011 by that same ADEA publication was a 22.6. Not really sure how a single person manages a fractional score on the DAT.

Lets see some more:

Loui 13.2-21.8
Harv 17.4-24.6
Mercy 15-23.1
Creigh 17-22.7

The list goes on. Why don't you explain that as well? They're clearly not taking a straight high and low AA, otherwise you wouldn't get decimals. Maybe they're averaging AA and PAT (In which case I would have a 23 (25AA + 21PAT/2=23)

 

[54807]

haha, this became such a lame thread.

There are alot of people in Pacific's 2010 class that have scores about or above 24. That still doesn't mean anything regarding specializing but I can name a few that sit near me in lab if that's worth anything. Maybe everyone is a bunch of liers!

btw....anyone suspicious of google chrome?? i think they know too much about me already....

 

[dentstd]

Just to further demonstrate how much garbage you're sowing across this board, the reported highest DAT score for Columbia's class of 2011 by that same ADEA publication was a 22.6. Not really sure how a single person manages a fractional score on the DAT.

Lets see some more:

Loui 13.2-21.8
Harv 17.4-24.6
Mercy 15-23.1
Creigh 17-22.7

The list goes on. Why don't you explain that as well? They're clearly not taking a straight high and low AA, otherwise you wouldn't get decimals. Maybe they're averaging AA and PAT (In which case I would have a 23 (25AA + 21PAT/2=23)

Um, they're not taking the rounded number reported on the score report. Isn't that quite obvious? If someone's true average is 22.6, the ADA rounds it up to 23. But that's not good enough for the schools. They draw a distinction between a 22.6 and a 22.8, because they want a higher level of precision. The number reported is the true average calculated if you take the average of the 5 academic sections, without rounding. I can only speculate how averages can come out to odd fractions of 0.1 or 0.7. I presume they're averaging 2 sets of scores.

It's not quite the garbage you think it is.

 

[dentstd]

I think I just got pre-accused of forging a score report, one I clearly just showed evidence of ordering. Seems like your grasping at straws to save face. Feel free to CYA however you want though, I think seeing an official score report should be enough to show the majority of SDN that you're posting out of your a$!.

Yea, it didn't click til later what you did with that. What I saw was a garbled mess of a picture. I saw a mess, thought what tha hell's this crap, and moved on. I didn't realize til later you ordered a score report. For one, I don't even understand why you spent $25 on a score report. You already got in, so I really don't care whether you got an 18 or a 29. Save your money in the future. SF's expensive.

And if it turns out that you really got a 25, why would I be embarrassed? I cited a published report. At worst, it would show that the administration at UoP is rather careless. Having a high score of 25 looks much better than 23, but the school probably doesn't like to double check important information. I feel no need to save any sort of face.

 

[armorshell]

Um, they're not taking the rounded number reported on the score report. Isn't that quite obvious? If someone's true average is 22.6, the ADA rounds it up to 23. But that's not good enough for the schools. They draw a distinction between a 22.6 and a 22.8, because they want a higher level of precision. The number reported is the true average calculated if you take the average of the 5 academic sections, without rounding. I can only speculate how averages can come out to odd fractions of 0.1 or 0.7. I presume they're averaging 2 sets of scores.

It's not quite the garbage you think it is.

Why would they average 2 sets of scores to produce a "high score" and a low to high range.

 

[armorshell]

Yea, it didn't click til later what you did with that. What I saw was a garbled mess of a picture. I saw a mess, thought what tha hell's this crap, and moved on. I didn't realize til later you ordered a score report. For one, I don't even understand why you spent $25 on a score report. You already got in, so I really don't care whether you got an 18 or a 29. Save your money in the future. SF's expensive.

You obviously do care, otherwise you wouldn't have posted that, or called me out as "Mr. 25" in an "Oh so condescending" manner

 

[dentstd]

Why would they average 2 sets of scores to produce a "high score" and a low to high range.

Because they consider a person score the average of all test attempts, not his highest score on the score report. For example, if a student took the test twice and received a 21.4 and a 21.6 (21 and 22 once rounded) on retake the school may use 21.5 as the score to consider for admissions purposes. And if that person has the high score for the school, then that school now has a high of 21.5. The score average is used for many schools nationwide. It's universally used for law schools, for example.

 

[dentstd]

You obviously do care, otherwise you wouldn't have posted that, or called me out as "Mr. 25" in an "Oh so condescending" manner

I don't care enough for you to spend money on a score report. I'd rather you use your money on yourself.

 

[armorshell]

Because they consider a person score the average of all test attempts, not his highest score on the score report. For example, if a student took the test twice and received a 21.4 and a 21.6 (21 and 22 once rounded) on retake the school may use 21.5 as the score to consider for admissions purposes. And if that person has the high score for the school, then that school now has a high of 21.5. The score average is used for many schools nationwide. It's universally used for law schools, for example.

You think it's that common for the high scorers in a class to have taken the exam multiple times?

 

[dentstd]

You think it's that common for the high scorers in a class to have taken the exam multiple times?

Well, if they're anything like my Kaplan friends, they've taken the DAT a couple times, the GRE a couple times, the LSAT a couple times, and the MCAT a couple times. Usually with 95-99th%. There are many overachievers out there who don't settle. I went to school with these types of people.

One thing I noticed is that the high score each year's a 27AA. There were 2 last year, but not a single school in the country as recruited these 27's. Why? Because they don't apply. They prepare fully for these exams, destroy it, but don't apply to schools. They just simply enjoy destroying exams. One of my friends took the MCAT for fun, got a 38, then applied to PhD programs. He wanted simply to know that he could've gotten into med school if he wanted to. One LSAT instructor for PR took the LSAT 8 times, the last 6 scores of which were 180, the maximum score. Then he finally decided to take the plunge and go to Harvard Law. My point? There are those that find standardized exams very easy and may not be satisfied with a 23-24AA. I've taken a wide range of exams and the DAT's an easier one, because it requires almost no reasoning, with exception of the QR. It's all accuracy in execution.

You and I went to very different undergrads. Very different student body. That's largely why we have very different viewpoints on many issues.

 

[doc toothache]

Beats soap operas.

 

[armorshell]

Well, if they're anything like my Kaplan friends, they've taken the DAT a couple times, the GRE a couple times, the LSAT a couple times, and the MCAT a couple times. Usually with 95-99th%. There are many overachievers out there who don't settle. I went to school with these types of people.

One thing I noticed is that the high score each year's a 27AA. There were 2 last year, but not a single school in the country as recruited these 27's. Why? Because they don't apply. They prepare fully for these exams, destroy it, but don't apply to schools. They just simply enjoy destroying exams. One of my friends took the MCAT for fun, got a 38, then applied to PhD programs. He wanted simply to know that he could've gotten into med school if he wanted to. One LSAT instructor for PR took the LSAT 8 times, the last 6 scores of which were 180, the maximum score. Then he finally decided to take the plunge and go to Harvard Law. My point? There are those that find standardized exams very easy and may not be satisfied with a 23-24AA. I've taken a wide range of exams and the DAT's an easier one, because it requires almost no reasoning, with exception of the QR. It's all accuracy in execution.

You and I went to very different undergrads. Very different student body. That's largely why we have very different viewpoints on many issues.

Still, empirically, you're wrong. I have a 25AA, and am part of the class in question. They either calculate the high score differently, or they're mistaken.

 

[doc toothache]

When will the poor number 25 rest in peace?

 

[armorshell]

When will the poor number 25 rest in peace?

Not sure what you mean?

 

[gryffindor]

You and I went to very different undergrads. Very different student body. That's largely why we have very different viewpoints on many issues.

People who take standardized tests "just because" multiple (!!!) times need to get a life. I don't know where you went to undergrad, but I'm sure there were a lot more interesting and fun things to do (even if they were intellectual activities) than take meaningless tests.

I have seen college students do a lot of dumb things, never thought this would be on that list.

 

[dentstd]

People who take standardized tests "just because" multiple (!!!) times need to get a life. I don't know where you went to undergrad, but I'm sure there were a lot more interesting and fun things to do (even if they were intellectual activities) than take meaningless tests.

I have seen college students do a lot of dumb things, never thought this would be on that list.

It's their job! Once they take the test and kill it and can provide verifiable proof that they're that good, they get really high paying jobs. Tutoring costs $70-150/hr, depending on how good they are. How'd you like to receive about $100/hr to help some kid on homework-like tasks during college? And need I remind you that overachievers don't really work to get to where they are.

Plus, they don't really take tests just because. Many go in to learn about test questions so they can create and develop their own study guide. New studyguides come out all the time, but test writers don't really publish official exams, so these kids with photographic memories go in and take the exams. Some of these kids that seemingly have no lives may just have ulterior motives, motives that may make them rich.

Ever studied for the DAT? Ever realized how few study material are out there? Most are adapted from the MCAT, and the sample tests from TopScore and Achiever aren't even remotely representative of the real exam. That's because few bother to go into the exam "just cause" and memorize or learn from the actual questions.

 

[dentstd]

Still, empirically, you're wrong. I have a 25AA, and am part of the class in question. They either calculate the high score differently, or they're mistaken.

Big deal. If I'm "empirically" wrong, then it's because UoP was careless. I really don't care. The blame ultimately goes to the good folks at UoP.

 

[dentstd]

Not sure what you mean?

He means, drop it.

 

[armorshell]

Big deal. If I'm "empirically" wrong, then it's because UoP was careless. I really don't care. The blame ultimately goes to the good folks at UoP.

If you actually think they "accidentally" forgot about the dozen or so people with >23AA scores, you've got a screw lose. They're using some kind of calculation or average, and not the kind you're suggesting.

 

[predentn]

Still, empirically, you're wrong. I have a 25AA, and am part of the class in question.

.

 

[doc toothache]

I actually used to think ortho was "boring as f", and I'm pretty sure I have posted to that effect on this site at some point. That was until I took a few ortho classes and found out it's actually pretty interesting.

Just to further demonstrate how much garbage you're sowing across this board, the reported highest DAT score for Columbia's class of 2011 by that same ADEA publication was a 22.6. Not really sure how a single person manages a fractional score on the DAT.
Lets see some more:

Loui 13.2-21.8
Harv 17.4-24.6
Mercy 15-23.1
Creigh 17-22.7
The list goes on. Why don't you explain that as well? They're clearly not taking a straight high and low AA, otherwise you wouldn't get decimals. Maybe they're averaging AA and PAT (In which case I would have a 23 (25AA + 21PAT/2=23)

Thanks for telling me, I'll make sure to let the admissions office know there was an error in that edition. I doubt the ADA will print a redaction or anything but they probably should know.

I also doubt my 25AA was the highest score in my class that year either, and I know multiple people in my little sim lab row (1/12th of the class) who had 24AAs.

If you actually think they "accidentally" forgot about the dozen or so people with >23AA scores, you've got a screw lose. They're using some kind of calculation or average, and not the kind you're suggesting.

A 25 AA is exceptional achievement and one should definitely feel proud. If we wish to continue to remind our readers of our success would it not be easier to just include the AA score in the signature?

Some responses are peppered with a selection of insults and questionable language that do not appear to be particularly impressive especially coming from an a mod, or this simply the new requirements for up and coming SDN mod? The rhetoric in some of the posts could easily be reduced by at least 50db and still remain audible enough.

Since you appear to be singularly concerned over the statistical "garbage" that passes through SDN, in the case of the range of DAT scores it would be more productive if you addressed this issue with ADEA or you could simply walk over the UOP registrar and ask them a simple question. Why some of the high scores that are noted by ADEA do not appear to come on the high range of distribution may be a mystery. It could well be as Dentsd suggested that we may have a number of professors with too much time on their hand that decide to take the DAT, MCAT, LSAT and PCAT just for kicks. It could also be, at least in the present case, that ds purely and simply include all the DAT scores taken by the enrollees and thus we would be looking at an average score of the student in question rather than high score. In any case, the information given by the ADEA should be viewed as a guide rather than for the accuracy of the high and low ranges. On multiple retakes reporting only one would be akin to reporting a gpa after the failing grade have been removed from the trascripts.

 

[caloriefree]

I'm pretty sure the verbal war began when someone implied that armorshell was lying about his stats by calling him "Mr. 25," not the other way around. I see nothing wrong with armorshell coming to his own defense. But this thread sure has gotten silly for sure. 😴

 

[dentstd]

If you actually think they "accidentally" forgot about the dozen or so people with >23AA scores, you've got a screw lose. They're using some kind of calculation or average, and not the kind you're suggesting.

It's good to know you have faith in your peers. It's an admirable trait. I'm personally curious how UoP does their calculations to bring a 25 or greater down to a 23. Maybe the person who did the calculations had a 12 QR.

 

[54807]

Not trying to prove anyone wrong but here are the numbers. Nothing special. But worth noting...you go to Pacific (or ANY school) and you can specialize. The best one to go to is where you can get a high rank and enjoy your time and eventually take that NBDE and earn a P++++++++++++++.

This info gets posted in the elevators of our school. So it's pretty official I guess!

Class size starts at 143 each year from what I know.


Program Match Year Graduation Year
Orthodontics 2008 08
Orthodontics 2008 08
Orthodontics 2008 08
Orthodontics 2008 08
Orthodontics 2008 06
Orthodontics 2008 07
Orthodontics 2008 06
Orthodontics 2008 04
Orthodontics 2008 07
Pediatric 2008 08
Pediatric 2008 08
Pediatric 2008 08
Pediatric 2008 08
Pediatric 2008 05
Pediatric 2008 06
Pediatric 2008 03
Pediatric 2008 06
Pediatric 2008 00
Periodontics 2008 08
Periodontics 2008 08
Periodontics 2008 08
Periodontics 2008 06
Periodontics 2008 05
Periodontics 2008 07
Endodontics 2008 08
Endodontics 2008 8
Endodontics 2008 08
Endodontics 2008 08
Endodontics 2008 02
Endodontics 2008 07
Endodontics 2008 04
OMFS 2008 08
OMFS 2008 08
OMFS 2008 08
OMFS 2008 08
OMFS 2008 08
OMFS 2008 08
OMFS 2008 07
OMFS 2008 07
Prosthodontics 2008 06
Prosthodontics 2008 01
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 08
GPR 2008 06
AEGD 2008 08
AEGD 2008 08
AEGD 2008 08
AEGD 2008 08
AEGD 2008 08
AEGD 2008 08
AEGD 2008 08
AEGD 2008 07
Advanced Education in Implants 2008 01
Orthodontics 2007 07
Orthodontics 2007 07
Orthodontics 2007 07
Orthodontics 2007 07
Orthodontics 2007 07
Orthodontics 2007 07
Orthodontics 2007 07
Orthodontics 2007 07
Orthodontics 2007 07
Orthodontics 2007 05
Orthodontics 2007 05
Orthodontics 2007 04
Orthodontics 2007 97
Pediatric 2007 07
Pediatric 2007 07
Pediatric 2007 07
Pediatric 2007 07
Pediatric 2007 07
Pediatric 2007 07
Pediatric 2007 07
Pediatric 2007 00
Pediatric 2007 00
Pediatric 2007 06
Periodontics 2007 07
Periodontics 2007 07
Endodontics 2007 07
Endodontics 2007 07
Endodontics 2007 07
Endodontics 2007 07
Endodontics 2007 02
Endodontics 2007 03
OMFS 2007 07
OMFS 2007 07
OMFS 2007 07
OMFS 2007 07
OMFS 2007 06
Prosthodontics 2007 07
GPR 2007 07
GPR 2007 07
GPR 2007 07
GPR 2007 07
GPR 2007 07
GPR 2007 07
GPR 2007 07
GPR 2007 07
GPR 2007 07
GPR 2007 07
GPR 2007 07
GPR 2007 07
GPR 2007 07
GPR 2007 07
GPR 2007 06
AEGD 2007 07
AEGD 2007 07
AEGD 2007 07
AEGD 2007 07
AEGD 2007 07
AEGD 2007 07
AEGD 2007 07
AEGD 2007 07
AEGD 2007 07
AEGD 2007 07
Orthodontics 2006 06
Orthodontics 2006 06
Orthodontics 2006 06
Orthodontics 2006 06
Orthodontics 2006 04
Orthodontics 2006 03
Pediatric Dentistry 2006 06
Pediatric Dentistry 2006 06
Pediatric Dentistry 2006 02
Pediatric Dentistry 2006 03
Pediatric Dentistry 2006 04
Pediatric Dentistry 2006 95
Pediatric Dentistry 2006 01
Pediatric Dentistry 2006 03
Periodontics 2006 06
Periodontics 2006 05
Periodontics 2006 05
Endodontics 2006 06
Endodontics 2006 06
Endodontics 2006 06
Endodontics 2006 01
Endodontics 2006 96
Endodontics 2006 05
OMFS 2006 06
OMFS 2006 06
OMFS 2006 06
OMFS 2006 05
OMFS 2006 05
OMFS 2006 04
Prosthodontics 2006 06
GPR 2006 06
GPR 2006 06
GPR 2006 06
GPR 2006 06
GPR 2006 06
GPR 2006 06
GPR 2006 06
GPR 2006 06
GPR 2006 06
GPR 2006 06
GPR 2006 06
GPR 2006 06
AEGD 2006 06
AEGD 2006 06
AEGD 2006 06
AEGD 2006 06
AEGD 2006 06
AEGD 2006 06
AEGD 2006 06
AEGD 2006 06
AEGD 2006 06
AEGD 2006 06
AEGD 2006 06
AEGD 2006 06
AEGD 2006 06
AEGD 2006 04
AEGD 2006 04
Orthodontics 2005 05
Orthodontics 2005 05
Orthodontics 2005 05
Orthodontics 2005 05
Orthodontics 2005 04
Orthodontics 2005 00
Orthodontics 2005 01
Pediatrics 2005 05
Pediatrics 2005 05
Pediatrics 2005 05
Pediatrics 2005 05
Pediatrics 2005 05
Pediatrics 2005 05
Pediatrics 2005 05
Pediatrics 2005 05
Pediatrics 2005 01
Pediatrics 2005 04
Pediatrics 2005 00
Periodontics 2005 05
Periodontics 2005 05
Periodontics 2005 05
Periodontics 2005 03
Periodontics 2005 03
Periodontics 2005 98
Endodontics 2005 05
Endodontics 2005 05
Endodontics 2005 05
Endodontics 2005 05
Endodontics 2005 04
Endodontics 2005 01
Endodontics 2005 04
OMFS 2005 05
OMFS 2005 05
OMFS 2005 05
OMFS 2005 05
OMFS 2005 03
OMFS 2005 04
GPR 2005 05
GPR 2005 05
GPR 2005 05
GPR 2005 05
GPR 2005 05
GPR 2005 05
GPR 2005 05
GPR 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 05
AEGD 2005 01

Yes, some of these grads are older and spent some time in private practice before going on. We are a GP bound school, so this is to be expected!

Enjoy and let the number crunching begin!!

 

[dentstd]

All 3 of the most recent mods have slipped and pushed the barriers on their post activities. It's nothing bad. The ones that havn't pushed that barrier (aphistis, itsgavinc, tinman) also don't say anything.

 

[doc toothache]

Not trying to prove anyone wrong but here are the numbers. Nothing special. But worth noting...you go to Pacific (or ANY school) and you can specialize. The best one to go to is where you can get a high rank and enjoy your time and eventually take that NBDE and earn a P++++++++++++++.

This info gets posted in the elevators of our school. So it's pretty official I guess!

Class size starts at 143 each year from what I know.

Yes, some of these grads are older and spent some time in private practice before going on. We are a GP bound school, so this is to be expected!

Enjoy and let the number crunching begin!!

For this list to be meaningful, it would need to be compared to the national distribution of specialists.

 

[dentstd]

Not trying to prove anyone wrong but here are the numbers.

Something verifiable'd be awesome. UoP's already under heat for potentially giving false information on match rate. Typing in ortho 9 times for a single year doesn't cut it. UoP seemed to triple Harvard's rate, and it's not believable, even if it inclues previous grads.

 

[armorshell]

Something verifiable'd be awesome. UoP's already under heat for potentially giving false information on match rate. Typing in ortho 9 times for a single year doesn't cut it. UoP seemed to triple Harvard's rate, and it's not believable, even if it inclues previous grads.

If you'd read it you'd note that includes past grads. What "heat" for "false information"?