Chance me

[johblip]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

3.7 cGPA
3.6 sGPA
3.8 BCP

DAT:

BIO: 17 (I got a 19 on my 1st attempt -- only important for the schools that take the 'highest' score.)
GC: 19
OC: 20
PAT: 21
RC: 22
QR: 18
AA: 19 (assuming it'll be 20 @ the higher schools)
TS: 19 (assuming it'll be 20 @ the higher schools)

Little over 100 hours shadowing. Self-employed for 3 years. 400+ hours volunteer work. No research. No leadership (I guess you could call being self-employed leadership 😕 but I'm not too sure).

Thanks for the help!!! 👍👍👍👍

 

[Jungerr]

there are schools that only take the highest scores from multiple DAT attempts? That's news to me.

 

[asne0407]

I think it's only 2...

 

[johblip]

there are schools that only take the highest scores from multiple DAT attempts? That's news to me.

Now that I actually looked into it, it seems that I misunderstood what people meant by highest score

Will the 17 in BIO screw things up for me?

 

[Ionz]

Now that I actually looked into it, it seems that I misunderstood what people meant by highest score

Will the 17 in BIO screw things up for me?

Even if the schools "take" the highest score, they have access to all scores to my knowledge. The application is made to be completely transparent so they aren't exactly going to go out of their way to turn a blind eye to specific things..

A 17 in Bio does not look good tbh. If there's any one particular section on the DAT that you want a high score in, it's probably Bio.

 

[johblip]

Even if the schools "take" the highest score, they have access to all scores to my knowledge. The application is made to be completely transparent so they aren't exactly going to go out of their way to turn a blind eye to specific things..

A 17 in Bio does not look good tbh. If there's any one particular section on the DAT that you want a high score in, it's probably Bio.

I agree BIO is important and I unfortunately had a bad exam for what I knew. There were quite a few wtf questions but what is done is done. Do you think this would warrant a retake or do you think my GPA / w/e consideration they give my previous BIO performance will give me a solid chance for acceptance?

 

[Ionz]

I agree BIO is important and I unfortunately had a bad exam for what I knew. There were quite a few wtf questions but what is done is done. Do you think this would warrant a retake or do you think my GPA / w/e consideration they give my previous BIO performance will give me a solid chance for acceptance?

It's generally believed that a high GPA coupled with low DAT score can bring into question the difficulty of your coursework at your particular institution. The DAT, after all, is a standardized exam so there's no discrepancy in difficulty there.
So given that, you should make a decision whether or not you think a retake would be invaluable to your application or whether that study time could be better used elsewhere to boost other aspects of your application.

If I was in your shoes, I would retake. But again, it's completely up to you.

 

[johblip]

It's generally believed that a high GPA coupled with low DAT score can bring into question the difficulty of your coursework at your particular institution. The DAT, after all, is a standardized exam so there's no discrepancy in difficulty there.
So given that, you should make a decision whether or not you think a retake would be invaluable to your application or whether that study time could be better used elsewhere to boost other aspects of your application.

If I was in your shoes, I would retake. But again, it's completely up to you.

Only thing that stops me from retaking is the random factor of the DAT. Despite being 'standardized' there is a difference in difficulty from exam to exam. For example, I hit BIO hard on the second round and averaged 21 on qvault and 22 on bootcamp. What did I end up with? A bloody 17. That aside, wasn't the average 19.7 last year? Wouldn't that mean my 19 AA / 19 TS is right in line with the average accepted student? And if that's the case, why would the rigor of my coursework be questioned?

 

[CedarZ4]

Only thing that stops me from retaking is the random factor of the DAT. Despite being 'standardized' there is a difference in difficulty from exam to exam. For example, I hit BIO hard on the second round and averaged 21 on qvault and 22 on bootcamp. What did I end up with? A bloody 17. That aside, wasn't the average 19.7 last year? Wouldn't that mean my 19 AA / 19 TS is right in line with the average accepted student? And if that's the case, why would the rigor of my coursework be questioned?

Because your GPA is well above "average," yet you only scored an "average" DAT score? Not even though, because 1 point on the DAT is not just "1 point."

 

[asne0407]

I wouldn't just look at the AA...schools look at all your scores...its just like if someone has a 21 AA= above average but a 15 or 16 on one of the sciences= well below average. You have to take into account that they will be concerned however it may not stop them from granting you an interview...I think you still have a good chance without a retake but that is just my opinion.

 

[Ionz]

Only thing that stops me from retaking is the random factor of the DAT. Despite being 'standardized' there is a difference in difficulty from exam to exam. For example, I hit BIO hard on the second round and averaged 21 on qvault and 22 on bootcamp. What did I end up with? A bloody 17. That aside, wasn't the average 19.7 last year? Wouldn't that mean my 19 AA / 19 TS is right in line with the average accepted student? And if that's the case, why would the rigor of my coursework be questioned?

Don't compare one exam from the next. I meant the difficulty of any one exam and all the students that take that same particular exam. A student from Cali who is in community college would be taking the exact same exam as a student in Harvard. That's the meaning of standardized.

With that said, it's only logical to see why the coursework would be questioned with a combination of high GPA/low DAT. I'm not saying your DAT is particularly low, but your GPA is relatively high. What does a high BCP coupled with a below average Bio score tell you?

Again, like I said, if you feel comfortable with your scores, then you don't have to retake. Yes your AA/TS is in line with last year's statistics (a bit lower actually), but keep in mind it's been an increasing trend for the past 4-5 years, so this year's statistic is expected to be higher. You're not competing with last year's applicants, you're competing with this year's applicants.

 

[CedarZ4]

Actually, "difficulty" of exams are taken into account, as all the scores are scaled based on how every test taker performs that day on that specific exam. So if you scored lower the next time you take it, it's not the the test was "harder" it was just that you got lucky the first time and got questions you studied for, yet this time you got questions you didn't study for (which would ultimately mean not well-prepared). I do understand that Bio can be very left field... but if one question is really left field and everyone gets it wrong, your score will be scaled accordingly.

Back to the "chancing" you, I think you definitely have a shot this cycle (with no red flags on the rest of your app and a solid PS). However, your chances of acceptance in the end I would say is about 50-60% with below average DAT and above average GPA. Again, this is assuming "average" everything else - PS, EC, interview, etc.

 

[johblip]

I guess I'm just a tad bit upset that I scored the way I did on BIO. I knew that a 17 would look bad but I was hoping I was just being neurotic. Although I want to retake, I'm not too sure if I have it in me to study for the DAT all over again. I guess its neither here nor there considering it would be way too late in the cycle for a retake to matter. I was just hoping to have a solid chance at acceptance with what I have.

I didn't know about the high GPA / low DAT thing. So it makes this situation suck even more. 🙁

 

[asne0407]

This is my thinking...although yes the average AA is increasing throughout the years, that does not AT ALL mean that you will not get accepted. Each school is different. For instance they are taking scores from ivys like Harvard and from other schools with lower stats and averaging them...that means that people get in with 26s and people get in with 16 AAs...I believe you have a good chance at an acceptance. If I were in your shoes I would go along with this cycle and if you do not get accepted, contact the schools and see why then re evaluate and see if you need to retake.

 

[Ionz]

I guess I'm just a tad bit upset that I scored the way I did on BIO. I knew that a 17 would look bad but I was hoping I was just being neurotic. Although I want to retake, I'm not too sure if I have it in me to study for the DAT all over again. I guess its neither here nor there considering it would be way too late in the cycle for a retake to matter. I was just hoping to have a solid chance at acceptance with what I have.

I didn't know about the high GPA / low DAT thing. So it makes this situation suck even more. 🙁

Definitely apply this cycle though. Who knows what might come your way, right? If anything, you could learn about what you really need to improve on for following cycle, in the case that you aren't quite successful.

I know it's a mission to study for the DAT, but consider it a preview of what you'll have to do for the NBDE, albeit a much much easier mission

 

[laa302426]

Just my experience from applying last cycle: I had pretty much the exact same GPA as you and the same dat...with a 17 in bio and I stalked these forums all app cycle. I started to worry because people kept harping on how "bio score was most important." I applied first batch and got accepted to 9 schools (including 2 ivys; Penn and Columbia) on dec 3rd. No one asked me about the 17 in any of my interviews. It's a holistic review. And yes, I did have decent extracurriculars, but not ones like some of the stuff I was reading on here with kids curing AIDS and stuff. So, from my experience, no the 17 in bio will not be what makes or breaks you. Good luck.

 

[Ionz]

Just my experience from applying last cycle: I had pretty much the exact same GPA as you and the same dat...with a 17 in bio and I stalked these forums all app cycle. I started to worry because people kept harping on how "bio score was most important." I applied first batch and got accepted to 9 schools (including 2 ivys; Penn and Columbia) on dec 3rd. No one asked me about the 17 in any of my interviews. It's a holistic review. And yes, I did have decent extracurriculars, but not ones like some of the stuff I was reading on here with kids curing AIDS and stuff. So, from my experience, no the 17 in bio will not be what makes or breaks you. Good luck.

We're harping on that because it's kind of true... No one discouraged OP from applying. In fact, we are encouraging him to apply but while retaking DAT. Are you going to argue that a higher Bio score is not going to increase his chances everywhere?

 

[laa302426]

We're harping on that because it's kind of true... No one discouraged OP from applying. In fact, we are encouraging him to apply but while retaking DAT. Are you going to argue that a higher Bio score is not going to increase his chances everywhere?

It will help him, but is it worth risking a retake? OP might get a lower score somewhere else. It's like I said, the one score will not make you or break you. This issue is always discussed on here but I did not seem to see any proof with my experience applying and being accepted to schools that it was true. I had 2 classmates, one also with a 17 bio and the other a 16 bio, get accepted to multiple schools last cycle as well. Hence, this theory can not hold as much water as pre-dents like to believe. No one has a perfect application, so if one 17 subscore is coupled with solid grades, good extracurriculars, and nice letters of rec, it can be overlooked.

 

[Ionz]

It will help him, but is it worth risking a retake? OP might get a lower score somewhere else. It's like I said, the one score will not make you or break you. This issue is always discussed on here but I did not seem to see any proof with my experience applying and being accepted to schools that it was true. I had 2 classmates, one also with a 17 bio and the other a 16 bio, get accepted to multiple schools last cycle as well. Hence, this theory can not hold as much water as pre-dents like to believe. No one has a perfect application, so if one 17 subscore is coupled with solid grades, good extracurriculars, and nice letters of rec, it can be overlooked.

That's the biggest risk definitely, considering it will be the OP's third time writing, which would be the worst case scenario. Congrats on your acceptances, but know that your experience is quite rare given schools' average matriculant statistics, and predents (especially keeners like us on SDN) like to play it safe with above average numbers.

 

[CedarZ4]

Just my experience from applying last cycle: I had pretty much the exact same GPA as you and the same dat...with a 17 in bio and I stalked these forums all app cycle. I started to worry because people kept harping on how "bio score was most important." I applied first batch and got accepted to 9 schools (including 2 ivys; Penn and Columbia) on dec 3rd. No one asked me about the 17 in any of my interviews. It's a holistic review. And yes, I did have decent extracurriculars, but not ones like some of the stuff I was reading on here with kids curing AIDS and stuff. So, from my experience, no the 17 in bio will not be what makes or breaks you. Good luck.

This is all anecdotal... and pretty much useless. Just because you got in does not mean OP will get in. The fact is, odds are actually probably slightly against him if anything. You got in with those scores, and that is great for you (not sarcasm, I'm being sincere) but I can guarantee you it wasn't that 17 that got you the acceptances, rather other factors. Since we don't know OPs EC, LOR, etc. we can only judge him based on DAT score, and we are just stating as it is. If you haven't have a look at Dr. Toothache's excel post on student statistics. If I recall correctly, your chances drop significantly if your DAT is under a 19. OP asked us to "chance him" and we can only base that on statistics.

I'm not trying to be hostile, but while SDN is fantastic and filled with useful information, it is the worse when people throw out empty hopes to others. E.g. you pretty much suggesting OP to not retake because he still has a chance, and while that may be true, fact is he needs to retake it to really have a "good chance" at acceptance.

 

[johblip]

f you haven't have a look at Dr. Toothache's excel post on student statistics. If I recall correctly, your chances drop significantly if your DAT is under a 19. OP asked us to "chance him" and we can only base that on statistics.

Hey, if its not too much trouble, could you link me the excel sheet where it states this? It'd be nice to see the hard statistics. I've tried looking it up but I haven't found anything.

 

[periopocket]

Stats are good hope you applied broadly! You should get in somewhere! GL!

 

[CedarZ4]

Hey, if its not too much trouble, could you link me the excel sheet where it states this? It'd be nice to see the hard statistics. I've tried looking it up but I haven't found anything.

I was midway through my post when I realized, there may be a misunderstanding. When I said if you score under a 19, your chances drop significantly, I was referring to the AA not just the Biology score specifically. However, if we use the TS scores to do the calculation, we can get a somewhat better representation. Anyway, take this with a grain of salt but have a look.

Based on the statistics here:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=901073

These are for 2009 enrollees, but I can't imagine the trend being any different, if anything the % of getting accepted with a 19 or under AA is even lower since DAT scores are going up. Doc Toothache doesn't have the averages for the most recent class, and I've already sold my ADEA book.

But, if you have a look at the table at the bottom. With a DAT AA score of 19-20, your acceptance rate is about 58.8% (3492 applicants, 2056 accepted). However, when you drop down to a 17-18 DAT, acceptance rate is 34.24%. This is a 24% drop, compared to say dropping from a 21 to the 19-20 range, which is only about 14%, so that's double. Doing the same thing with TS because of the reason explained above, a TS of 19-20 has a acceptance rate of 56.3% (3480 applicants, 1958 accepted), compared to under 19, 34.5%. Again, we see a 22% drop. Now, do take this with a grain of salt because these are overall averages (AA and TS) that combines more than one section, so your doing poorly in one section will probably not have such an ill effect... but I can't imagine this trend not applying to individual scores as well in terms of acceptance chance, even if it's not a staggering 25%. Something to think about.

Again, I am really happy to hear Iaa being accepted with a below average DAT score, but this is absolutely not the norm. I would considering him an outlier, albeit not an extreme. Take this for what it's worth... Again, I am not trying to be hostile towards Iaa, but I see way too often people saying "Oh you're fine" "Just apply and give it a try" "You can do it" etc. etc. giving people false hope and not retaking the DAT, or doing a Masters or the sorts when they really should to increase their chances. Again, whether you take the DAT again is up to you. You absolutely do have a chance as is... but is it worth the risk in time and money to have to re-apply if you don't get in...? Well, only you can answer that. One last thing to note is that applications ARE viewed holistically, so I am not taking into consideration other factors, just purely your DAT score.

 

[johblip]

I was midway through my post when I realized, there may be a misunderstanding. When I said if you score under a 19, your chances drop significantly, I was referring to the AA not just the Biology score specifically. However, if we use the TS scores to do the calculation, we can get a somewhat better representation. Anyway, take this with a grain of salt but have a look.

Based on the statistics here:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=901073

These are for 2009 enrollees, but I can't imagine the trend being any different, if anything the % of getting accepted with a 19 or under AA is even lower since DAT scores are going up. Doc Toothache doesn't have the averages for the most recent class, and I've already sold my ADEA book.

But, if you have a look at the table at the bottom. With a DAT AA score of 19-20, your acceptance rate is about 58.8% (3492 applicants, 2056 accepted). However, when you drop down to a 17-18 DAT, acceptance rate is 34.24%. This is a 24% drop, compared to say dropping from a 21 to the 19-20 range, which is only about 14%, so that's double. Doing the same thing with TS because of the reason explained above, a TS of 19-20 has a acceptance rate of 56.3% (3480 applicants, 1958 accepted), compared to under 19, 34.5%. Again, we see a 22% drop. Now, do take this with a grain of salt because these are overall averages (AA and TS) that combines more than one section, so your doing poorly in one section will probably not have such an ill effect... but I can't imagine this trend not applying to individual scores as well in terms of acceptance chance, even if it's not a staggering 25%. Something to think about.

Again, I am really happy to hear Iaa being accepted with a below average DAT score, but this is absolutely not the norm. I would considering him an outlier, albeit not an extreme. Take this for what it's worth... Again, I am not trying to be hostile towards Iaa, but I see way too often people saying "Oh you're fine" "Just apply and give it a try" "You can do it" etc. etc. giving people false hope and not retaking the DAT, or doing a Masters or the sorts when they really should to increase their chances. Again, whether you take the DAT again is up to you. You absolutely do have a chance as is... but is it worth the risk in time and money to have to re-apply if you don't get in...? Well, only you can answer that. One last thing to note is that applications ARE viewed holistically, so I am not taking into consideration other factors, just purely your DAT score.

Sounds good. I came across something interesting in Doc Toothache's files (2013 guide), schools ranked the DAT in the following:

AA>TS>RC>PAT>Bio>QR>GC>OC

So, given the previous, I would assume that my RC / PAT would balance out the lower BIO score but, more importantly, I think that waiting 3 months from now to retake the DAT isn't probably going to help because it'll be so late into the cycle. I'm assuming my % of acceptance is somewhere in the 60% range as my DAT is somewhere around ~50-51% (I lowered the value as it ranged 19-20 and is probably inflated as current scores represent a higher DAT avg) and my GPA should push me somewhere in the 60% range which is pretty a decent shot especially considering I'll be applying to 20-ish schools.

 

[periopocket]

Sounds good. I came across something interesting in Doc Toothache's files (2013 guide), schools ranked the DAT in the following:

AA>TS>RC>PAT>Bio>QR>GC>OC

So, given the previous, I would assume that my RC / PAT would balance out the lower BIO score but, more importantly, I think that waiting 3 months from now to retake the DAT isn't probably going to help because it'll be so late into the cycle. I'm assuming my % of acceptance is somewhere in the 60% range as my DAT is somewhere around ~50-51% (I lowered the value as it ranged 19-20 and is probably inflated as current scores represent a higher DAT avg) and my GPA should push me somewhere in the 60% range which is pretty a decent shot especially considering I'll be applying to 20-ish schools.

Dude your stats are great! Don't fall for all the hype on here!

 

[sacapuntas]

I think you are going to get some interviews and if you do well at them you are going to get in somewhere, likely more than 1 school if you applied broadly.

Your GPAs are great and your DAT is average. That makes an above average applicant in my eyes. No offense to Ionz, but to bring to question your GPA being valid because of a 'low' DAT is nonsense in your situation. He/she may have a point if you scored a 17AA.

Good luck to you!


EDIT: just because Cedar has posted so many good things in the past, I re-read what he posted and it does make sense to a certain extent. You may end up on the outside looking in over 1 exam that costs a few hundred bucks and some weeks of re-prep. Not to mention, you might get into more affordable schools with a re-take whereas you might have to choose only from expensive privates the way things are.

My gut feeling is that you will get in somewhere as is, but posters like Cedar have a lot of wisdom and are worth listening to.

 

[Ionz]

Your GPAs are great and your DAT is average. That makes an above average applicant in my eyes. No offense to Ionz, but to bring to question your GPA being valid because of a 'low' DAT is nonsense in your situation. He/she may have a point if you scored a 17AA.

None taken. But, let me quote myself.

It's generally believed that a high GPA coupled with low DAT score can bring into question the difficulty of your coursework at your particular institution.

Where in any of my posts do you see my singling out the OP? I said it's the general belief (and logically so) and significant discrepancies between GPA and DAT can and will bring that into question. It has been true since high school GPA and SATs.

I guess a lot of people like to see what they want to hear on this forum. All arguments aside, a higher DAT score is only going to increase his chances. A 25 in Bio looks better any way you look at it than a 17. The OP could easily submit his app now with current scores, but if he truly wants the best possible chance this cycle, that's what I was suggesting. He can take it or leave it, because it only affects him.

EDIT: To OP, apply as soon as possible. If you do decide a retake, you can always indicate a future test date on the application anyway. You'll get something out of this cycle, whether it's an acceptance or a better plan for next cycle.

 

[jeffity]

I guess a lot of people like to see what they want to hear on this forum. All arguments aside, a higher DAT score is only going to increase his chances. A 25 in Bio looks better any way you look at it than a 17. The OP could easily submit his app now with current scores, but if he truly wants the best possible chance this cycle, that's what I was suggesting. He can take it or leave it, because it only affects him.

Best possible chance this cycle? If he's retaking, it'll be for next cycle. You can't roll in with scores that arrive to schools in early November. Those chances will suck.

 

[Ionz]

Best possible chance this cycle? If he's retaking, it'll be for next cycle. You can't roll in with scores that arrive to schools in early November. Those chances will suck.

True, given the timeline and the 90-day grace period, it will arrive pretty late. But still, assuming a better score then, there's still no way it can hurt chances if he applies ASAP. His current scores will be given consideration and there's not much he can do about it, but supplementing it with a better score later on will only improve his chances.

 

[jeffity]

True, given the timeline and the 90-day grace period, it will arrive pretty late. But still, assuming a better score then, there's still no way it can hurt chances if he applies ASAP. His current scores will be given consideration and there's not much he can do about it, but supplementing it with a better score later on will only improve his chances.

Yes, next cycle. I can tell you for sure, that one of his top choices does not sit and wait for more scores. Once they look, they're done and decide and don't look again. And they're not alone in their method. I think we can all agree here that higher is better. In any score. But for this cycle, this is it, if he pulls the trigger....which needs to happen soon. My vote: you're fine and don't need a retake.