clinically weak schools?

[Dent001]

---

Members do not see this ad.

This isnt the best title. I cant change it. All schools are good, i know.

did anyone interview at a school where they:

1. dont teach implants

2. dont use digital imaging

3. Don't have large patient pool/They have to find there own patients and do there billings.

 

[ToothAcres]

did anyone interview at a school where they:

1. dont teach implants

2. dont use digital imaging

3. dont have large patient pool

Harvard.....great name, terrible clinicians.🙁

 

[DrDDSman]

did anyone interview at a school where they:

1. dont teach implants

2. dont use digital imaging

3. dont have large patient pool

What's your definition of large patient pool? Also, I would think schools that have on-site specialty programs in perio and/or pros would shy away from teaching students implants.

Also, for the new dental schools, how do they plan on establishing a patient pool large enough to accommodate the requirements of students?

 

[Pat Kelly]

Harvard.....great name, terrible clinicians.🙁

get the f off the forums - don't make assumptions when you have no idea about a certain topic.

 

[txlonghorn]

Harvard.....great name, terrible clinicians.🙁

Pwned

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=3187139&postcount=12

 

[JBieber]

lots of ivy league hate on these boards ...must repost:

 

[Pennywisdom]

Harvard.....great name, terrible clinicians.🙁

Absolutely ridiculous post.

 

[mcchuster]

I can't say all (i don't know all the schools reputations lol) but the majority of schools will give u a degree and train you to be a dentist with sufficient clinical skills. Of course if you ask around, there will be school that are much more clinically based and some are more academically focus (tend to aim for the research students). The difference between what's required in clinical can be compared very obviously side by side if you ask the students. I'm going to be attending Temple, mostly known for its clinical based curriculum, but i can tell you that all the other schools will prepare you pretty well . I don't know much about all the other schools, but BU and Temple all have high tech stuffs.
Also, after school you will be able to do residency. Even for a year will prepare you quite well for your future practice. The dentist i shadowed for graduated from NYU and he said he learned more from his residency than he did his clinical years.

 

[sw4gger]

Simply ask the established dentists in the area you have in mind and ask about recent grads from which school do good work and which ones are subpar usually that's the best way to know.

 

[PChemGrad]

Harvard.....great name, terrible clinicians.🙁

👍

 

[binsbts]

Harvard.....great name, terrible clinicians.🙁

Hey,

Harvard teaches implants, use digital imaging and is located in Boston.

I think that if you are wanting to be a general dentist focusing only on techniques and treating patients, I think UoP, for example, has a great program with more rigorous requirements for clinical stuff.

From what I understand, only 2 out of 35 students at Harvard go into GPR, and the rest go in to specialize (ortho, oral surgery, endo, prostho...etc). I think the next highest is Columbia with around 60% spec. rate (without GPR).

 

[dentalWorks]

Hey,

Harvard teaches implants, use digital imaging and is located in Boston.

I think that if you are wanting to be a general dentist focusing only on techniques and treating patients, I think UoP, for example, has a great program with more rigorous requirements for clinical stuff.

From what I understand, only 2 out of 35 students at Harvard go into GPR, and the rest go in to specialize (ortho, oral surgery, endo, prostho...etc). I think the next highest is Columbia with around 60% spec. rate (without GPR).

So your saying more than 90% of Harvard dental students get into the competitive residencies? no? I don't think this is correct at all

 

[prsndwg]

lots of ivy league hate on these boards ...must repost:

Glad they lost again last night.. for the 3rd consecutive time👎

 

[ToothAcres]

Pwned

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=3187139&postcount=12

I don't think so....... I did not say Harvard was not capable of training clinicians, only that they are better at grooming researchers and academics.

 

[flapaTron]

I don't think so....... I did not say Harvard was not capable of training clinicians, only that they are better at grooming researchers and academics.

look at their specialization rates and you'll think otherwise. ~40% go into ortho, 30% go into OMS, and then a mix of other specialties.

unless you interviewed at Harvard it's not quite fair to make those statements, and even then you woudnlt make said statements.

 

[amcmahon]

UCLA does not use digital Xrays but I do not think that effects their students' skills at graduation. If you can read the old school you can read the new school.

 

[txlonghorn]

I don't think so....... I did not say Harvard was not capable of training clinicians, only that they are better at grooming researchers and academics.

I believe you said they produce terrible clinicians. Do you have any data to back up your claim?

Also, it is false that you say that HSDM is better at grooming academics and researchers. When the HSDM program was five years long before 1995, there was a year of research that was required (it might have been the case back then). However, this is not the case anymore. Right now, students are required to do a 2 month research project (on anything - does not have to be dentistry related). All this does is introduce you to research and strengthen your CV. I feel that the school aims more to help you get wherever you want and provides the resources for you to get there. Most students go into specialties and a few go into public health and private practice.

When I interviewed there, I asked about the clinical strength of the program. I was told that the school does not focus on making you do the same procedure over and over again. Rather, they make sure that you do it right. Every year, there are students that choose to enter private practice from the program that do well. Either way, no matter what school you come out from, there is going to be a steep learning curve when you enter private practice.

 

[binsbts]

So your saying more than 90% of Harvard dental students get into the competitive residencies? no? I don't think this is correct at all

heyy,

sorry, I was definitely wrong. It seems like..for class of 2010, there were 4 GPR and 1 AEGD. And then for other specializations, it was 4 OMFS, 4 Endo, 10 Ortho, 5 Pedo, 2 Prostho, 1 Perio, 1 Anesthesia (And then 1 MPH 1 PD/MPH). So 75-80%? I think for Columbia it's somewhere around 60% without counting GPR and AEGD.

For another post,

I don't think Harvard is just good at training researchers and heatlhcare professionals. Also...by clinician if you mean a general dentist who can perform most procedures...maybe there's an argument. On the other hand, if you think of a clinician as a general dentist, an orthodontist, an endo, an oral surgeron..etc who can perform procedures well...I think Harvard does a great job if you look at externship evals, NBDE exams, and residency matches.

I know you mostly meant procedures there, but as clinicians, we should also think about patient communication & care, diagnosing, care coordination, thinking about systemic health...etc.

 

[txlonghorn]

heyy,

sorry, I was definitely wrong. It seems like..for class of 2010, there were 4 GPR and 1 AEGD. And then for other specializations, it was 4 OMFS, 4 Endo, 10 Ortho, 5 Pedo, 2 Prostho, 1 Perio, 1 Anesthesia (And then 1 MPH 1 PD/MPH). So 75-80%?

What you also need to consider is that everyone that applied matched. Moreover, many of the graduates that went into GPR, Anesthesia, and AEGD did so by choice - not so they can improve their application for the next cycle. If you look at some of the stats from the previous years, you will find that about 90% specialize.

 

[ChubbyBaby]

clinically weak schools?

It's a good and understandable question from a pre-dent. But all schools are pretty good: you're not gonna find much difference really. Visit many, and find out where you think you'll be happiest. You want to be happy, because the happier you are the more you'll reach and push for the clinical experiences. In my experience at dental school, the people who WANTED more clinical experience got it. It's your drive and ambition that count, not what a school dictates to you are the minimum clinical requirements. I did 0 implants in dental school because i have no interest in them and will never do them in private practice. Other classmates did a ton. I myself had interests in other areas, and pursued them.

And I wouldn't fuss too much about the digital. I learned on old school film and it was a little annoying, but it shouldn't really influence your judgement.

 

[Osity]

It's a good and understandable question from a pre-dent. But all schools are pretty good: you're not gonna find much difference really. Visit many, and find out where you think you'll be happiest. You want to be happy, because the happier you are the more you'll reach and push for the clinical experiences. In my experience at dental school, the people who WANTED more clinical experience got it. It's your drive and ambition that count, not what a school dictates to you are the minimum clinical requirements. I did 0 implants in dental school because i have no interest in them and will never do them in private practice. Other classmates did a ton. I myself had interests in other areas, and pursued them.

And I wouldn't fuss too much about the digital. I learned on old school film and it was a little annoying, but it shouldn't really influence your judgement.

Which school did you attend?

 

[ChubbyBaby]

Which school did you attend?

Sorry Osity, i'd rather not specify, i've had issues w/ anonymity on SDN before. But it was a private east coast school.

I know many dentists from different schools, and i think they'd agree w/ my analysis.

 

[Montserrat]

look at their specialization rates and you'll think otherwise. ~40% go into ortho, 30% go into OMS, and then a mix of other specialties.

unless you interviewed at Harvard it's not quite fair to make those statements, and even then you woudnlt make said statements.

Kind of a silly statement by you here. Specialty programs also recruit for the purpose of academia and research. The acceptance % means jack in terms of their clinical readiness.

I see nothing wrong with saying that Columbia or Harvard are less clinically oriented than say Temple because it's the truth. It's time and resource allocation, period. However, if you take two individuals with equivalent hand skills and give one more preparation than the other... infer from that what you will. Let's just say Columbia has switched up their curriculum now slightly to allow for more clinical time for subsequent classes. I'm glad they heard the rumblings in the hall --- extra practice is, afterall, never a bad thing.

 

[Maygyver]

I don't think so....... I did not say Harvard was not capable of training clinicians, only that they are better at grooming researchers and academics.

Did you interview at Harvard by the way? You seem to think you know a lot about the program. Don't trust what you hear on SDN to be factual.

 

[Montserrat]

Did you interview at Harvard by the way? You seem to think you know a lot about the program. Don't trust what you hear on SDN to be factual.

It is entirely possible for someone who didn't interview at Harvard undergraduate dental, to know more about the history and their current program than you. The dental community is relatively small and dentists/dental students chatter it up all the time via social and personal channels. That said -- Harvard requirements have certain research foci which eat up time from dent undergrads. The opportunity cost of that time manifests in time devoted to honing hand skills at other programs. Whether that translates to enhanced clinic readiness and hand skills is a toss up. What is not a toss up is the limiting factor of X-number of hours/day and resource allocation. So to say that Harvard is more adept at churning our researchers and academics than some other schools isn't a stretch, because they have more hours devoted to that than other programs.

Of course, caveat emptor -- both to my opinion as well as yours.

 

[Maygyver]

It is entirely possible for someone who didn't interview at Harvard undergraduate dental, to know more about the history and their current program than you. The dental community is relatively small and dentists/dental students chatter it up all the time via social and personal channels. That said -- Harvard requirements have certain research foci which eat up time from dent undergrads. The opportunity cost of that time manifests in time devoted to honing hand skills at other programs. Whether that translates to enhanced clinic readiness and hand skills is a toss up. What is not a toss up is the limiting factor of X-number of hours/day and resource allocation. So to say that Harvard is more adept at churning our researchers and academics than some other schools isn't a stretch, because they have more hours devoted to that than other programs.

Of course, caveat emptor -- both to my opinion as well as yours.

Correct. However, someone that posts what he posts in a thread asking explicitly about 3 criteria does not appear to know much on the subject at all. The only research focus I saw at Harvard was the 8 week research project during one summer. It doesn't seem to really eat up too much time. All I'm saying that someone who comes into a thread and posts insignificant comments repeatedly (check his past posts) doesn't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to the topic.

 

[flapaTron]

Kind of a silly statement by you here. Specialty programs also recruit for the purpose of academia and research. The acceptance % means jack in terms of their clinical readiness.

why thank you

this is indeed a good point, however, the overall undertone of this thread is that Harvard and other schools with similar curriculums LACK in terms of clinical training, which is simply not true. the point is that schools just have different emphases (which does not put you at a disadvantage in my opinion). ideally, residency/post-doctoral training while smooth out the edges, regardless if you go into academia or research.

 

[ToothAcres]

Correct. However, someone that posts what he posts in a thread asking explicitly about 3 criteria does not appear to know much on the subject at all. The only research focus I saw at Harvard was the 8 week research project during one summer. It doesn't seem to really eat up too much time. All I'm saying that someone who comes into a thread and posts insignificant comments repeatedly (check his past posts) doesn't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to the topic.

I do not think my comments or my opinions for that matter, are insignificant. They are actually quite significant gauging by the responses. I never wanted this to be about Harvard. I love Harvard for law school, the business school, the campus, and the library. Remember, I didn't start this thread, I just gave my opinion.......like you and everyone else. You hurt my feelings, I actually have 2 legs to stand on.🙁

 

[binsbts]

It is entirely possible for someone who didn't interview at Harvard undergraduate dental, to know more about the history and their current program than you. The dental community is relatively small and dentists/dental students chatter it up all the time via social and personal channels. That said -- Harvard requirements have certain research foci which eat up time from dent undergrads. The opportunity cost of that time manifests in time devoted to honing hand skills at other programs. Whether that translates to enhanced clinic readiness and hand skills is a toss up. What is not a toss up is the limiting factor of X-number of hours/day and resource allocation. So to say that Harvard is more adept at churning our researchers and academics than some other schools isn't a stretch, because they have more hours devoted to that than other programs.

Of course, caveat emptor -- both to my opinion as well as yours.

I think Montserrat made great points. But I worry for some students who somehow are able to make the connection between his explanation and some other poster's comment of "Harvard.....great name, terrible clinicians.":

1. In terms of what makes a good dentist, a good clinician who treats, would someone be a good dentist if he performs a treatment in x-10 minutes compared to someone else who performs it in x minutes? Or is a good clinician who has competent hand skills and performs procedures well, knows when to treat, how to diagnose, knows and considers the implications of systemic health effects and chronic, long-term effects? We, for example, have issues of overdiagnosis in certain areas, which result in hurting patients...so this goes to my next point and a point that Monserrat makes ->

2. "Whether that translates to enhanced clinic readiness and hand skills is a toss up." This is so true and I don't think anyone knows. If we look at two extremes: 1. for the four years, just focus on treatment planning and hand techniques or 2. just study academics, systemic health, population-based perspectives, we know either way wouldn't train you to be a great clinician who treat patients well and it's somewhere in the middle. And so the question is what is the optimal curriculum that trains good clinicians? The reality is that all schools have different curriculums because they have different ideas. Certainly, predental students and dental students who went through one dental program and heard about other schools through online forums don't know what would result in a good dentist and a good clinician.

So when we say Harvard makes terrible clinicians...for me..that's a very broad...and often misleading statement. And as someone else said, we will all have a steep learning curve when we initially go in to practice anyway.

 

[dentaldore]

This isnt the best title. I cant change it. All schools are good, i know.

did anyone interview at a school where they:

1. dont teach implants

2. dont use digital imaging

3. Don't have large patient pool/They have to find there own patients and do there billings.

I think we can move on from talking about Harvard and picking on/getting angry at ToothAcres. Can't we all just get along lol? In the end, no matter which school you go to, they wouldn't be accredited if they didn't prepare you to be a good dentist...the rest is up to you to be a good clinician after school.

 

[mamelons]

What's your definition of large patient pool? Also, I would think schools that have on-site specialty programs in perio and/or pros would shy away from teaching students implants.

Also, for the new dental schools, how do they plan on establishing a patient pool large enough to accommodate the requirements of students?

Not necessarily. UTHSCSA has both pros and perio, two top programs, and the predoctoral students learn a ton about implants, and if you are one of 10 lucky students who get chosen to do an elective on surgical placement of implants, as a senior predoctoal student you will get to place implants. Most of these students place around 3, but I know some place many more than that. Majority if not all predoctoal students will have the opportunity to restore implants. I personally have restored 2 single unit implant crowns, and implant FPD, and an implant overdenture.