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.
DREDAY said:
I haven't heard of the appeal but I doubt it will do anything. In the current system the National Board of Examiners can easily be sued by students because the scores are being used to measure something they were never intended to measure. Specialty programs will also be at jeopardy of a lawsuit if they use the Board scores as a criteria for acceptance. This is because the national Board of Examinors have said that the scores are not to be used as a comparative measure.
Click to expand...

Looks like we have controversy in our hands. Making decisions without any representation from post doctoral program directors is a very bad idea.
Members don't see this ad.
 
people are predicting that you will have to take a specific entrance exam for each specialty? good guess, but i was thinking...what the hell are they going to test you on? everyone in dental school learns the same crap! its not like you would test someone strictly on ortho, or pedo. That wouldnt make sense. You would end up throwing all the basics out the window and focus in on something you're competing to learn in the first place. I thought using the board exams as admissions sucks, solely on the purpose that its a pain in the ***..but i think it measures who really wants to specialize and who's got the stamina and drive to push themselves further. I think its kinda fair b/c it tests everyone on the basics. Thats my thought at least, i dont know what else they could test you on for a specialty exam.
 
AT the ADEA meeting, this topic was reviewed, most of the dental deans believed it would take some of the pressure off the students, and would cut out "teaching for the boards". When asked, if all the undergrad grades were pass fail, and the DAT's were pass fail, well som different opinions surfaced.

As far as we are concerned... Boards, GPA/Standings, recommendations are only to be sure the candiadate get the door open, P/F will open the door to more. Our decisions is generally based on who the person is, extracurricular activities,research, outreach projects and the interview. Are they a team player and will they work as a team with the group of residents selected. Personal calls to faculty also help.

We take into account hardships, problems and maturity to name a few,
 
Members don't see this ad :)
ptrianon said:
It is absolutely not true that most people with sufficient time and effort can get 90+ on the new format. Also, I am curious why everyone on this forum seems so against the change. How does this affect someone nearly accepted to a residency or already in residency?
Click to expand...

Because it comes down to the old "if I went through it, so should you". I think this change is a great idea, because it will place the emphasis on the things that Dr. Arm mentioned. In my opinion, these are far more important as to what kind of dentist one will be than how much they can study for a basic science exam. Also, people take that exam after their first (or during their second year). A lot may change between that time and the beginning of residencies. I would bet that the GRE becomes required everywhere. This is actually an aptitude test (unlike the boards). Either way, time will tell as to how this plays out.
 
wow, this change would alleviate so much pressure. by focusing on outreach, leadership, and overall character, students would have a greater opportunity to grow and mature by applying what they learn in class to the real world. I think thats the biggest issue i have. I would love to spend my whole summer doing research, networking with doctors, and volunteering for outreach programs...but my boards are in the way. So ill be crammed in my room with my nose in a book :sleep:

im definitely curious to see how things turn out
 
I think there has to be some objective way to compare everyone. Everyone has to take the DAT to get into dental school. Right now, the boards are the only objective measure to compare students from different schools. Although class rank/GPA help seperate out within a school, they don't help much when comparing between schools, especially when you start to consider the subjective nature of a lot of the grades you receive in dental school clinically. Perhaps the GRE will become a standard test. I am not sure. I am willing to bet that most people on this thread who support this are those who didn't score as well as they wanted to on the boards and want to specialize and those who don't support this are those who scored how they wanted to or believe that they will do well on the boards.
 
I'm still curious about what they will do with the people who have the current and previous format scores. When pass/fail change kicks in, does that mean everyone who sat for the test before will also get their results reported as pass/fail? or will the scores remain the same forever? and if the latter is the case, how will they compare pass/fail scores with the old scoring system?
 
I think the UCLA ortho program must have seen this coming and already changed their selection criteria to whoever can donate the most cash...
 
Dukie said:
Because it comes down to the old "if I went through it, so should you". I think this change is a great idea, because it will place the emphasis on the things that Dr. Arm mentioned. In my opinion, these are far more important as to what kind of dentist one will be than how much they can study for a basic science exam. Also, people take that exam after their first (or during their second year). A lot may change between that time and the beginning of residencies. I would bet that the GRE becomes required everywhere. This is actually an aptitude test (unlike the boards). Either way, time will tell as to how this plays out.
Click to expand...

There is no way to determine if an applicant is a team player in a 1-2 day interview. Have you ever read a bad letter or rec? Sure some are more detailed than others but by and large they are all good. Most of them say the same thing. Someone can act like they will be a team player but actually not be once they become a resident. How do you determine who is the better team player b/w people with team-based things on their CV? You HAVE to have objective parts to an application or you might as well just roll dice. There is no way the GRE will become required everywhere. I feel bad for those who are going to apply who can't separate themselves from the average.
 
I agree that objectivity matters. Just as the DAT ranked everyone against his/her peers, the NDBE I does the same thing. Everyone knew the DAT counted. Those who prepared did well. Everyone knows that Part I of boards counts. If you want to specialize in certain areas, you'd better do well. There's no escaping it.

Now, what do you do? I project this change will open the door to even more back-door nonsense. If hard work and determination are reduced as elements in the process, what's left? Less objectivity and more subjectivity. Not what we needed when merit is already undervalued.
 
capisce? said:
There is no way to determine if an applicant is a team player in a 1-2 day interview. Have you ever read a bad letter or rec? Sure some are more detailed than others but by and large they are all good. Most of them say the same thing. Someone can act like they will be a team player but actually not be once they become a resident. How do you determine who is the better team player b/w people with team-based things on their CV? You HAVE to have objective parts to an application or you might as well just roll dice. There is no way the GRE will become required everywhere. I feel bad for those who are going to apply who can't separate themselves from the average.
Click to expand...

I agree... that is why I asked several deans.... what if DATs were pass fail and undergrad grades were pass/fail....

we have been pretty lucky blending the program with team players... we look at all activities, projects they did... we don't go with letters of rec... yes all (we did have one negative letter years ago) positive... I call friends at every University... and many times they call me... telling me that the student will fit in...

we ask the students to come for a day BEFORE they apply...

as all programs we occassionally make mistakes but have been pretty lucky
 
rarm1 said:
I agree... that is why I asked several deans.... what if DATs were pass fail and undergrad grades were pass/fail....

we have been pretty lucky blending the program with team players... we look at all activities, projects they did... we don't go with letters of rec... yes all (we did have one negative letter years ago) positive... I call friends at every University... and many times they call me... telling me that the student will fit in...

we ask the students to come for a day BEFORE they apply...

as all programs we occassionally make mistakes but have been pretty lucky
Click to expand...


Dr. Arm,

I would argue that your situation is different as I believe you run an AEGD or GPR. If all specialty programs based acceptance off of the things you mentioned, any idiot could be made to look good. For example, anybody can participate in extracurriculars, leadership, research, etc. Also, this places a much larger emphasis on butt-kissing if resident placement will depend upon faculty making calls for students, etc. Personally, throughout high school I did tons of service, leadership, etc. so I could get a college scholly. Then in college I did the same thing so I could get into dental school. Once I got here, I didn't think I would specialize and so I spent more of my spare time with my wife and doing the things I enjoy rather than those other activities. Lucky for me, OMFS doesn't put as much stock into these "frou frou" activities. That said, I am still the same person I was for the 8 years prior to dental school even though I did a hell of a lot less community service and leadership activities once I got here. Participating in that stuff doesn't reveal anyone's personality, it is just something you gotta do to pad the resume for 99% of people.
 
The same people that you are denouncing because they will do tons of extraculiculars and kiss ***, are probably the same people that will cheat on NBDE part 1. Even if its not the same people, you have plenty of applicants that cheat on part 1 and are atop of the applicant pool without deserving to be there. Therefore, using Part 1 as a criteria, is not solving the problem of admitting "underqualified people."

Why should admissions directors use NBDE Part 1 as a comparisson criteria, when the National Board of Examiners have already said that it cannot be used as such? Using NBDE part 1 scores is like using a VELSCOPE to stage the cancer or displasia. Finally, several studies have shown that there is no clinical correlation between board scores and good clinical performance. Why are we using something that has no correlation with what we are trying to achieve?

There is the citation for the study publised in JDE:
http://www.find-health-articles.com...cores-predict-clinical-performance-dental.htm


servitup said:
Dr. Arm,

I would argue that your situation is different as I believe you run an AEGD or GPR. If all specialty programs based acceptance off of the things you mentioned, any idiot could be made to look good. For example, anybody can participate in extracurriculars, leadership, research, etc. Also, this places a much larger emphasis on butt-kissing if resident placement will depend upon faculty making calls for students, etc. Personally, throughout high school I did tons of service, leadership, etc. so I could get a college scholly. Then in college I did the same thing so I could get into dental school. Once I got here, I didn't think I would specialize and so I spent more of my spare time with my wife and doing the things I enjoy rather than those other activities. Lucky for me, OMFS doesn't put as much stock into these "frou frou" activities. That said, I am still the same person I was for the 8 years prior to dental school even though I did a hell of a lot less community service and leadership activities once I got here. Participating in that stuff doesn't reveal anyone's personality, it is just something you gotta do to pad the resume for 99% of people.
Click to expand...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Good point. I think we should use IQ tests along with interviews/letters of rec.
 
I don't understand how proponents of this idea use the importance of research, outreach, character, team player....etc as an argument for the new System. The NBDE with the current system does not eliminate any of these aspects of an applicant to be viewed and evaluated. PD's are free to choose whatever criteria (and they choose all of these but they weigh them differently) to select residents. The NBDE I however is a good way of measuring the discipline, effort, and yes basic science background that is important for becoming a good health care provider. This is an important aspect of an applicant. How can you be an oral surgeon without knowing anatomy? how can you be an orthodontist without knowing the biology of the periodontium?? yes this is not everything, but it's something imporatnt.
If NBDE is not accurate, then it should be improved.
 
servitup said:
Dr. Arm,

I would argue that your situation is different as I believe you run an AEGD or GPR. If all specialty programs based acceptance off of the things you mentioned, any idiot could be made to look good. For example, anybody can participate in extracurriculars, leadership, research, etc. Also, this places a much larger emphasis on butt-kissing if resident placement will depend upon faculty making calls for students, etc. Personally, throughout high school I did tons of service, leadership, etc. so I could get a college scholly. Then in college I did the same thing so I could get into dental school. Once I got here, I didn't think I would specialize and so I spent more of my spare time with my wife and doing the things I enjoy rather than those other activities. Lucky for me, OMFS doesn't put as much stock into these "frou frou" activities. That said, I am still the same person I was for the 8 years prior to dental school even though I did a hell of a lot less community service and leadership activities once I got here. Participating in that stuff doesn't reveal anyone's personality, it is just something you gotta do to pad the resume for 99% of people.
Click to expand...

It’s a harsh statement, my friend. Many schools required students to volunteer so many hours to graduate. I know one school’s minimum is 20 hours. Many, and I say many, students are doing 6-7 times more than minimum while majority of those students are going for GP. I totally disagree with you – if you involved in ASDA, kids or HIV clinic, low income clinic or whatever clinic your school promoting, it will change your perspectives. It may make you a better person and probably a better dentist. And maybe, just maybe, one day you will create a “free-day care”, when once a month you’ll open doors of your successful practice to people who can’t afford your deserved but high fees.
 
You're right. I exaggerated greatly there. While many people participate in those activities to a greater degree to improve their applications, that does not denigrate the benefits of their service both personally and to their communities. My rant was more directed to those who run for every office of every organization every time just to add another line to the resume. I did not intend to include volunteerism and community service as those activities are more meaningful to society.
 
Apart from specialty program admissions and GPRS and AEGDS, I'm assuming this would have an effect on DDS/DMD curriculum, as well. Since the new format will incorporate greater clinical evaluation, some of the schools that are highly didactic will have to bend their traditional curriculum to incorporate more clinical studies. Maybe not.
 
I think that merging part I and II of boards wouldn't necessarily mean taking a mega test. It will probably be bigger than just one, but doesn't have to be everything. It would suck to study for the test, but doesn't it suck to study for two tests? Getting them both out of the way at the same time with a pass/fail only option sounds good to me. There's got to be some kind of remediation plan of course. I like it, hope it happens. Let the orthodontists and oral surgeons take the GRE! Leave me out of it.
 
Tooth said:
Let the orthodontists and oral surgeons take the GRE!
Click to expand...

This has been brought up a few times, but I am just not a fan of this at all, and question why it’s relevant to some programs already. (Although I am aware that some schools require it for all of their grad programs regardless of subject which thus includes dental specialty programs.)

Having taken it for grad school, it tests on things most of us have stopped using or worrying about since college or even earlier. It’s very comparable to the SAT. In fact I got the exact same score on both!
 
tamkhan said:
Apart from specialty program admissions and GPRS and AEGDS, I'm assuming this would have an effect on DDS/DMD curriculum, as well. Since the new format will incorporate greater clinical evaluation, some of the schools that are highly didactic will have to bend their traditional curriculum to incorporate more clinical studies. Maybe not.
Click to expand...


We'll have to see how this gets implemented. At this point this is all speculation.
We need more details.
 
Tooth said:
I think that merging part I and II of boards wouldn't necessarily mean taking a mega test. It will probably be bigger than just one, but doesn't have to be everything. It would suck to study for the test, but doesn't it suck to study for two tests? Getting them both out of the way at the same time with a pass/fail only option sounds good to me. There's got to be some kind of remediation plan of course. I like it, hope it happens. Let the orthodontists and oral surgeons take the GRE! Leave me out of it.
Click to expand...


I believe that Canada already has a single test in place for initial licensure. I remember a few of my classmates complaining/explaining what a pain it was getting ready for it. But I think that they dont have a clinical exam either. Perhaps we should ask some of them more about how they felt about it. After all many of them end up having to do both. I'm sure many of us would consider challenging "the Part I & II combined mother of all exams" if the patient exam requirement of the licensure process were eliminated entirely. But then again I could be wrong entirely...
 
armorshell said:
Surprisingly, I actually received a response to my inquiry:



Looks like the next step is to figure out what the specialty programs are going to do. Is there an organization that has oversight over postgraduate dentistry, or is that just the ADA/ADEA?
Click to expand...

Problem is, your name's not Ryan. Is this a joke Ricky Ricardo? Started 3 days before Apr 1st.
 
Let my opinion be known: I think that this change is a terrible idea. There has to be some quantitative measure to differentiate between students applying to specialty programs. I can understand where the boards people are coming from in saying that the boards were not designed for this purpose, but that doesn't change the fact that they do a great job of fulfilling that role. As to the GRE being a good substitute: once again a terrible idea. The GRE is basically a glorified SAT. What does my ability to write an essay, or my ability to solve a geometry problem (considering I took geometry 10 years ago) have to do with whether I am the best applicant to a residency program? Shouldn't I be tested on my knowledge of dental anatomy, biochemistry, physiology (i.e. the things that I learned in dental school) rather than things I learned in 8th grade?

To all of those who think that students should be accepted to specialty schools based on their extracurricular activities, leadership experience, and service, etc alone have got to be kidding. I feel strongly that these things are important indicators of someone's motivation, they can not stand alone as good indicators of a students preparation to excel at a residency program. I guess that the reason that I am so incredibly frustrated is that I am going to be entering dental school next year, which means that I am going to be one of the first guinea pigs subjected to whatever they end up using to differentiate between students. I will say this, if they aren't going to use the boards to distinguish between students, then they better create an exam that is pretty dang similar. I don't mean to rant, but this whole thing has got my blood boiling, haha. I also really hope that this work this whole thing out so that it doesn't screw people who are attending a P/F school (like myself).
 
dayfu17 said:
Let my opinion be known: I think that this change is a terrible idea. There has to be some quantitative measure to differentiate between students applying to specialty programs. I can understand where the boards people are coming from in saying that the boards were not designed for this purpose, but that doesn't change the fact that they do a great job of fulfilling that role. As to the GRE being a good substitute: once again a terrible idea. The GRE is basically a glorified SAT. What does my ability to write an essay, or my ability to solve a geometry problem (considering I took geometry 10 years ago) have to do with whether I am the best applicant to a residency program? Shouldn't I be tested on my knowledge of dental anatomy, biochemistry, physiology (i.e. the things that I learned in dental school) rather than things I learned in 8th grade?

To all of those who think that students should be accepted to specialty schools based on their extracurricular activities, leadership experience, and service, etc alone have got to be kidding. I feel strongly that these things are important indicators of someone's motivation, they can not stand alone as good indicators of a students preparation to excel at a residency program. I guess that the reason that I am so incredibly frustrated is that I am going to be entering dental school next year, which means that I am going to be one of the first guinea pigs subjected to whatever they end up using to differentiate between students. I will say this, if they aren't going to use the boards to distinguish between students, then they better create an exam that is pretty dang similar. I don't mean to rant, but this whole thing has got my blood boiling, haha. I also really hope that this work this whole thing out so that it doesn't screw people who are attending a P/F school (like myself).
Click to expand...

Your point is well taken. If there is no standardized means of differentiating potential candidates, then what do you have left (especially if your school is P/F curriculum)? There will always be a piece missing from what would be considered the well-rounded applicant who possesses a CV with notable extracurriculars, research, LOR, etc. Unfortunately, these qualified candidates will most likely get the shaft. The only alternative would be to create an add-on pre-specialty exam which would just be an add-on stress to an already rigorous dental school experience. IMO, it is an unfair advantage to those who do receive a class rank. Trying to put myself in the shoes of a PD who's job is difficult enough sifting through all of the applications that land on the desk, what would I do? Sadly enough, I would probably go with someone with stats that I could measure putting much more emphasis on class rank and GRE scores. The glorified SAT is by no means an indicator of someone's ability to hack it in a specialty program. If this is what it comes down to, then it will be an a$$-backward system and applicants will be selected upon this irrelevant criteria (GRE scores) because there are no other data points to measure. I hope that this does not happen, but cannot see the outcome being fair at this time...
 
They could dpotentially use DAT scores until they come up with a better system. Also, I mentioned in the pre-dent thread that having a pre-specialty exam would be very interesting, as there would be comparatively fewer people taking it. COuld they do something like that on a percentile? Straight score? This also opens up the possibility of whatever testing agency that administers it publishing statistics and the like.
 
armorshell said:
They could dpotentially use DAT scores until they come up with a better system. Also, I mentioned in the pre-dent thread that having a pre-specialty exam would be very interesting, as there would be comparatively fewer people taking it. COuld they do something like that on a percentile? Straight score? This also opens up the possibility of whatever testing agency that administers it publishing statistics and the like.
Click to expand...

Armorshell - were you saying that we should retake the DAT? Or just use our scores that we already have? The DAT is a possibility, but once again, there are flaws with it. First of all, for all of us who have taken the DAT - we didn't know that they would be using it for that purpose. Then there is the fact that the DAT would have been a test that we took 4 years before applying - I'm sure that a lot of us are only going to get even more serious about studying, so our DAT score doesn't reflect our knowledge and work ethic as 3rd and 4th years. I think that the best thing that they could do is just have a test that is very similar to the Boards, for the sake of having study materials, like cards and practice tests, from which to start preparing. While this would add stress to some people, the fact that the actual boards are becoming p/f would mean that stress would be taken off of those same people. So all of us would only have to take one exam that we really needed to stress out about.
 
I think this is a great idea. I think dental schools are very good at producing dentists, and specialty applicants. What will happen now is dental students will have to evolve. Instead of putting all their eggs into the NBDE 1 basket, now they will have to do PRODUCTIVE research, engage in SERIOUS community service activities, and develop a strong clinical reputation in their area of interest. The DAT serves a different purpose than NBDE. The DAT is supposed to test the students background in the basic sciences. However, if you have gone through any dental school you know enough biochem, pharm, anatomy to become a specialist.
 
MAXILLOFACIAL2B said:
I think this is a great idea. I think dental schools are very good at producing dentists, and specialty applicants. What will happen now is dental students will have to evolve. Instead of putting all their eggs into the NBDE 1 basket, now they will have to do PRODUCTIVE research, engage in SERIOUS community service activities, and develop a strong clinical reputation in their area of interest. The DAT serves a different purpose than NBDE. The DAT is supposed to test the students background in the basic sciences. However, if you have gone through any dental school you know enough biochem, pharm, anatomy to become a specialist.
Click to expand...

Excellent post. That is my point, precisely. While this may take a while to fully be fleshed out, I think this is a very good idea. It will simply change the focus. The NBDE is simply not a good measure of success for specialties. Those interested in specializing will have to take their noses out books for a few minutes and give back to their communities. Yes, this takes away an objective measure, but this wasn't a good one.
 
MAXILLOFACIAL2B said:
I think this is a great idea. I think dental schools are very good at producing dentists, and specialty applicants. What will happen now is dental students will have to evolve. Instead of putting all their eggs into the NBDE 1 basket, now they will have to do PRODUCTIVE research, engage in SERIOUS community service activities, and develop a strong clinical reputation in their area of interest. The DAT serves a different purpose than NBDE. The DAT is supposed to test the students background in the basic sciences. However, if you have gone through any dental school you know enough biochem, pharm, anatomy to become a specialist.
Click to expand...


What the. . .

No no no. I worked very hard for my board score, and as I reapply to my desired specialty program, now I will be forced to compete with people that can just kiss a$$, join a few clubs, list some bogus volunteer stuff, donate daddy's money, etc. At least in the past my board score gave me a chance. Now how will I separate myself from all the a$$kisser? I mean, honestly, does any PD even check to see if what appicants are listing under volunteer work, extracurricular activities, etc. are real? I would guess no PD has the time or desire to do all that. the only things that can be checked and verified for sure are your academic achievements, one of which is the board score you get. Now that is going to be gone too. This sucks for people like me who really have to work hard to distinguish themselves as it is. URRRRRGHHHHHHHHH!!
 
That's right. No one knows how much or little work went into coordinating Joe Blow's volunteer dental clinic in NC versus John Doe's dental mission in TX. One person may have spent a year working their butt off while the other spent a couple of hours making phone calls or posting a list at school. PD's have no way of telling prior to interviews by looking at a CV which is already limited to 2 pages by the PASS.
 
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.
 
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...

It is not possible for them to do this IMO. I have friends published as first author who did zero actual work and I also know people who have spent countless hours in a lab with no publication to show for it. Much of it has to do with your research mentor.
 
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...

I would disagree with this point. Although I am not a specialist/even a dentist yet(hopefully next month!), I still think there is value to learning the information covered on NDBE I. It is important to know how immunity works, pharm for how drugs work and affect physiology, the biochemical pathways that are affected by drugs or infection, the anatomy of the body as we do cut on the human body, the different types of microbiologic organisms and the ways to treat them, and i can't believe anyone could think dental anatomy isn't relevant to being a good dentist. In my opinion, extra knowledge is always a good thing and can be applied to certain patient situations. All of this is especially applicable to OMFS, but even an orthodontist needs to know about growth and development i.e. embryology in treating the craniofacial patient. Just because it isn't doing a crown prep or something directly dental doesn't mean that knowledge isn't valuable and won't make you a better dentist.
 
Squished Rat said:
I would disagree with this point. Although I am not a specialist/even a dentist yet(hopefully next month!), I still think there is value to learning the information covered on NDBE I. It is important to know how immunity works, pharm for how drugs work and affect physiology, the biochemical pathways that are affected by drugs or infection, the anatomy of the body as we do cut on the human body, the different types of microbiologic organisms and the ways to treat them, and i can't believe anyone could think dental anatomy isn't relevant to being a good dentist. In my opinion, extra knowledge is always a good thing and can be applied to certain patient situations. All of this is especially applicable to OMFS, but even an orthodontist needs to know about growth and development i.e. embryology in treating the craniofacial patient. Just because it isn't doing a crown prep or something directly dental doesn't mean that knowledge isn't valuable and won't make you a better dentist.
Click to expand...

The difference between studying to pass the boards and studying to get 90+ on the boards is great. All the things you mention apply to the former group. I am not saying that studying for the boards is a bad thing just that the amount of studying many students feel compelled to do to stand out from the pack. Magnitudes of difference there.

servitup: You make a great point that there can be a big difference between effort and perceived achievements when it comes to research. Someone also mentioned that this kind of change could increase the influence of "connections" which is another great point. I will admit that I am totally biased at the moment, but it seems like there must be a better way...
 
servitup said:
It is not possible for them to do this IMO. I have friends published as first author who did zero actual work and I also know people who have spent countless hours in a lab with no publication to show for it. Much of it has to do with your research mentor.
Click to expand...

very true...not to mention how the clinicaly oriented schools tend to have less research opportunities to begin with. students at these schools might end up disadvantaged
 
armorshell said:
They could dpotentially use DAT scores until they come up with a better system. Also, I mentioned in the pre-dent thread that having a pre-specialty exam would be very interesting, as there would be comparatively fewer people taking it. COuld they do something like that on a percentile? Straight score? This also opens up the possibility of whatever testing agency that administers it publishing statistics and the like.
Click to expand...

makes sense. but when will the student take the specialty exam? the only time is really between year 2 and 3, and that is reserved for boards; summer between year 3 and 4 is for externships...it's strange how the decision was made unilaterally. until i read Dukie's post, i haven't really heard anyone welcoming this pass/fail thing.....all in all, thank goodness we're the class of 2010. i feel that in general, dentistry is undergoing so many changes in almost all aspects.
 
I've seen this asked a number of times, but nobody seems to have an answer.
What happens to those who take the test before the change date, but apply to programs after the change date?
Do the scores get reported to the post-doc programs since they were taken before the change date? Or, since they are applying after the change date, are they only reported as pass or fail?
 
fightingspirit said:
makes sense. but when will the student take the specialty exam? the only time is really between year 2 and 3, and that is reserved for boards; summer between year 3 and 4 is for externships...it's strange how the decision was made unilaterally. until i read Dukie's post, i haven't really heard anyone welcoming this pass/fail thing.....all in all, thank goodness we're the class of 2010. i feel that in general, dentistry is undergoing so many changes in almost all aspects.
Click to expand...

Well if boards is no longer looked at by specialty programs, spend most of that time focusing on the specialty exam and cram for boards like 2 days ahead of time and get a minimal passing score, which is apparently exactly what the overseeing bodies want people to do with this P/F nonsense.
 
This sounds like it might make the screening process that much harder for the departments.
 
i guarantee this will be a huge pain in the *** for program directors trying to sort through the chaff.
 
It may take them a couple of cycles to figure out how to better handle applicants under this process.
 
armorshell said:
the change will be retroactive, so after the date everythingg will be reported as pass/fail
Click to expand...

So, you could take the boards now and make a 95+ and if you are applying on or after 2010 your 95+ will instead be reported as "PASS".

We need some information confirming or denying this statement. Anyone find anything?
 
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
318
veryhappylabrador
veryhappylabrador
Denteal
**Official PASS 2024 Dental Anesthesiology Residency Interviews/Information
2
Replies
53
Views
12K
medddental
M
Top