Crime Rate SKY HIGH at TEMPLE DENTAL

[nextuszerodmd]

Is there a relationship between the failure of Temple students to rely on supportable data and the absence if any research programs at Temple?

There are research programs at Temple. We just had a research day fair last week. Now you are just pulling stuff out of your ass.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[nextuszerodmd]

I will believe whatever data is presented to me and so far no one has presented any real, objective data to me. I feel like I am the only one presenting real data whereas those that are Pro-Temple are bitter and making up data to artificially spruce up the quality of the school. I feel like I am arguing about how stem cell research can benefit medical research against religious conservatives who rely on personal faith rather than actual science. . .

But I totally understand how you feel. I remember trying to convince all of my friends that the Atari Jaguar was the greatest gaming machine ever made because I was the only one stupid enough to buy it and I wanted others to buy it and share in my misery. Obviously, misery loves company . . .

I hope you know that ArmorShell went to UOP and from the likes of it got accepted into OMFS.

 

[skiphotsauce]

Jeeves- honestly, what is your reason for having an agenda against Temple? And if you can say that you don't have an agenda, then why go on a public message board to speak negatively about it, with faulty logic and interpretation of numbers?

 

[nextuszerodmd]

A pass is a 4.0 in the first tier schools like Harvard, Columbia and UCSF that rely on the pass/fail grading system

No, that's where you are wrong. Guess you're not in a first tier school then...

 

[AskJeeves]

Jeeves- honestly, what is your reason for having an agenda against Temple? And if you can say that you don't have an agenda, then why go on a public message board to speak negatively about it, with faulty logic and interpretation of numbers?

I have no agenda against Temple whatsoever. My whole point is that Temple students have no right being so snooty because Temple isn't that great a school. I am just putting their feet to the fire and asking for substantiated data to back their snobbery, that's all.

 

[AskJeeves]

There are research programs at Temple. We just had a research day fair last week. Now you are just pulling stuff out of your ass.

Temple probably has the least recognized research program of any dental school.

 

[Angle Jr.]

In another thread, you were bashing NYUCD in a very similar manner you are bashing Temple here. I just wanted to point out the fact that your opinions do not seem to be based upon the best available evidence but upon the very limited knowledge that you have.

Now you are contending that research strength plays a significant role in categorizing dental schools as "first tier", "second tier", etc. Then please take a look at the following objective, published data that is publicly available. I also believe that NIH is a reliable source of information:

NIDCR Grants to U.S. Institutions, FY 2009
1 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR 9,513,498
2 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO 8,886,947
3 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY 8,818,332
Source: http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/GrantsAndF...talSchools/GrantstoDentalInstitutions2009.htm

You mentioned UCSF as one of the "top tier" schools in one of your posts in this thread. In the light of the objective and reliable piece of evidence provided above, it is quite logical to categorize NYUCD as one of the "top tier" dental schools in the nation, because its funding is comparable to that of UCSF, ranking as third in the nation and first among all the private schools. I also wanted to point out the fact that the former Dean of UCSF who led the nation in NIDCR funding is the current Dean of NYUCD. This information is also publicly available from reliable sources published by UCSF and NYUCD.

I hope this information helps you to make claims that are based upon the best available evidence.

 

[Skygrandpager]

I have no agenda against Temple whatsoever. My whole point is that Temple students have no right being so snooty because Temple isn't that great a school. I am just putting their feet to the fire and asking for substantiated data to back their snobbery, that's all.

Hmm, maybe it's just me but I never thought of Temple dental students as "snooty". My guess is that you had a bad interview day experience or a Temple student bullied you some way because clearly you are on a rampage.
My personal experience when I visited the school (based off of 1 day) was a very down to earth student body who answered my questions as honest as they could.
Most do say don't live around campus, so that much we agree on.

 

[AskJeeves]

Hmm, maybe it's just me but I never thought of Temple dental students as "snooty". My guess is that you had a bad interview day experience or a Temple student bullied you some way because clearly you are on a rampage.
My personal experience when I visited the school (based off of 1 day) was a very down to earth student body who answered my questions as honest as they could.
Most do say don't live around campus, so that much we agree on.

Let me rephrase that, snooty pre-dents like Simiam who are in for a rude awakening . . .

 

[AskJeeves]

I hope you know that ArmorShell went to UOP and from the likes of it got accepted into OMFS.

From the likes of what? I don't understand the relevance of your pointless remark.

First of all, I don't even know how ArmorShell got involved in this thread, considering the fact that he knows nothing about Temple, that his remarks about UoP actually support the basis of my argument that certain schools carry more prestige, and the fact that he was actually the one that originally insisted that Temple students are of lower caliber.

 

[AskJeeves]

In another thread, you were bashing NYUCD in a very similar manner you are bashing Temple here. I just wanted to point out the fact that your opinions do not seem to be based upon the best available evidence but upon the very limited knowledge that you have.

Now you are contending that research strength plays a significant role in categorizing dental schools as "first tier", "second tier", etc. Then please take a look at the following objective, published data that is publicly available. I also believe that NIH is a reliable source of information:

NIDCR Grants to U.S. Institutions, FY 2009
1 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR 9,513,498
2 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO 8,886,947
3 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY 8,818,332
Source: http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/GrantsAndF...talSchools/GrantstoDentalInstitutions2009.htm

You mentioned UCSF as one of the "top tier" schools in one of your posts in this thread. In the light of the objective and reliable piece of evidence provided above, it is quite logical to categorize NYUCD as one of the "top tier" dental schools in the nation, because its funding is comparable to that of UCSF, ranking as third in the nation and first among all the private schools. I also wanted to point out the fact that the former Dean of UCSF who led the nation in NIDCR funding is the current Dean of NYUCD. This information is also publicly available from reliable sources published by UCSF and NYUCD.

I hope this information helps you to make claims that are based upon the best available evidence.

My only issue with NYU is that it is a dental diploma mill, graduating way too many students, which should itself speak volumes as to the quality of education one can expect to receive.

With regard to the NIH research data, I agree that NYU has received a substantial sum of money, we were told that during our interview. However, you have to consider past monies allocated (which continue to be used), not simply one year's worth of funding. You also have to consider funding from private institutions. When you factor in the private funding, you will realize that the resources available to the Ivies dwarf the allocations made to schools like NYU. Also, Temple's absence from the list brings me back to my original point. Finally, the fact that Forsyth is #7 on that list brings into question the credibility of that data as supportive of the level of quality in a dental school. In sum, would you please post relevant information on this thread and reserve irrelevant information for their proper threads. Thank you.

 

[dentaldawg32]

Forsyth is a HUGE name in dental and craniofacial research and is actually affiliated with the Harvard University dental and medical schools.

But I agree, the fact that Forsyth is on the list does call into question the credibility of the ranking in regards to quality of dental school.

 

[AskJeeves]

Forsyth is a HUGE name in dental and craniofacial research and is actually affiliated with the Harvard University dental and medical schools.

But I agree, the fact that Forsyth is on the list does call into question the credibility of the ranking in regards to quality of dental school.

Amen! Finally, someone with sophisticated and realistic knowledge of the nature of dental schools.

 

[armorshell]

Why does anyone care about the students at are INVITED to interview? What really counts is who is eventually ACCEPTED.

I can put forth a cogent argument that says who is invited is more important. Who a school invites to interview is indicative of the type of student the school wants, and involves less active choice on the student's part (students often attend interviews as "backups", or schools they won't actually attend because of financial or geographical reasons. Looking at acceptances puts much more emphasis on student choice.

Since OMFS is a match though, I'll give that one to you. The students that were accepted are from UW, UK, UoP, UoP and UCSF. As far as the competitiveness of the program, average boards score for that group is 95+.

I don't see how my observations are biased as I make no OPINIONS since my OBSERVATIONS are based on actual data. This just proves how your logic is so twisted . . .

Are you finding evidence to support your opinion or basing your opinion on evidence? Are you sure the chicken came before the egg? How do you know? Isn't this just the pot calling the kettle black?

Besides, what is a single piece of evidence in a complete vacuum? You spew vitriol about how you're the only one posting evidence, but waxed on for almost a page about your unverifiable "10 friends" who all have eerily similar traits. You claim you have published evidence from Harvard, Penn and Columbia but can't produce it, making it as sketchy as anything else in this thread. That fact that you think that real, objective, worthwhile data about this topic exists, and that YOU'RE showing it to us is simply sad and a little pathetic.

I don't know how we got off topic as my original post to this thread added to the topic that Temple is in an especially (if not the most) dangerous neighborhood when compared to other schools, which, in addition to the lower caliber of its students and its [rB]elatively lower specialization rates when compared to the Ivies, decreases the quality of the dental school. [/B]

If that was your original post, than how is this off topic? Also, you realize the evaluation of "quality" of a dental school is exquisitely subjective, right? And we all know you, AskJeeves, master of statistics and objectivity, would never submit that you have a absolute answer to a purely subjective question, right?

I don't know anything about the quality of the Ortho program at UCONN, I just presented it because it was readily accessible online and it supports the onbious fact that competitive residencies have a preference for students from top tier schools, i.e., UCSF, Harvard, etc.

Ah yes, a re-statement of rule 34a of the pre-dental forum (a single data point is a statistically significant sample size). Funny how all that separates your single data point and mine is that I actually experienced and met all the people in question, and you simply googled for something that supported your stance.

Oh wait, did you just literally say you presented it because is supported your argument? You who are so immune from confirmation bias, and you who only believe in the truth?!!

When you use the word "hate," I am reminded of those who angrily contested the civil rights movement in this country in the 60s, those who undermind democracy worldwide, those who restrained scientific thought before the age of the Renaissance, etc. . . I think it would be much more constructive if you thought with your head and not your emotions . . .

You've misunderstood what I meant by "I hate bias quoters." Bias quoters are a common variety of internet poster, who in arguments will search wikipedia for every type of formal logical fallacy and apply them, often incorrectly, to the arguments they face, instead of actually addressing the argument itself. That comment was a self-deprecating jape at my own quoting of the confirmation bias you (and we all) so heartily profess.

There's another kind of annoying internet poster though, who again, instead of addressing the argument itself, tries to find foibles in the language, spelling or grammar of their opponent. Congrats, you're officially a grammar nazi.

Here's a link to the official rules of the pre-dent forum (http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=391959). I'll refer you to rule 6 (Pre-dents know more than actual dents).

Here's a link to some actual research on the subject of school choice affecting life outcomes to get you started on something with actual substance. There's 15-20 years of educational literature (Much of it, ironically, from Harvard graduates) showing that school choice (specifically, attending so-called "better" schools) doesn't affect either life, career or educational outcomes.

These should get you started:

http://papers.nber.org/papers/w13443

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...o.edu/levitt/Papers/CullenJacobLevitt2003.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322

Oh, did you think I was just making all of this up? I've posted links to these and similar articles at least a dozen times on SDN, and they're readily accessible at any library. Have you actually done any research into the topic of school choice besides half-heartedly googling some some irrelevant statistics?

An important quality of a health care practitioner is that you desperately try to put the egg before the chicken, i.e. use the evidence to develop your opinion. We don't always succeed, but YOU might want to try a little harder. For fun, do some of your half-hearted googling of my first hundred posts and you'll see they sound a lot like yours.

 

[armorshell]

First of all, I don't even know how ArmorShell got involved in this thread, considering the fact that he knows nothing about Temple

My involvement in this thread stems from your lofty assumption that ANY school provides ANY significant benefit over another when applying for post-graduate residencies.

hat his remarks about UoP actually support the basis of my argument that certain schools carry more prestige

Your assumption that UoP is a prestigious school holds may hold merit only by the dictionary definition of prestigious, and only in dental circles. UoP is not considered to be a "specialty school", as schools like Harvard, Columbia and such often are. My and my classmates success in this years OMFS application cycle derive from extensive hard work, drive, and mutual support, not because of any effort of the school on our behalf.

and the fact that he was actually the one that originally insisted that Temple students are of lower caliber.

Regarding academic caliber of the average student, this is patently obvious when comparing Temple to schools like Columbia/Harvard. (If you consider academic caliber to be GPA/DAT scores of entering students, as I do). Why anyone would be upset about this statement I cannot understand. UoP students are, on average, also of lower academic caliber than Harvard/Columbia, etc... students. This supports my point, that the school you attend doesn't matter nearly as much as who you already are, in regards to specializing in dentistry at least.

 

[AskJeeves]

You claim you have published evidence from Harvard, Penn and Columbia but can't produce it, making it as sketchy as anything else in this thread. That fact that you think that real, objective, worthwhile data about this topic exists, and that YOU'RE showing it to us is simply sad and a little pathetic.

Upenn and Harvard gave us hard copies of their post-doc match rates. Columbia posted theirs on their website:

http://dental.columbia.edu/education/POSTDOC10YR.pdf

You're welcome.

My whole point is that certain schools pick better students and are better at preparing their students for the boards and for specialization programs, which appears to be in line with what you are already saying, so I don't see any point of disagreement between our points of view.

 

[snaggletoof]

i think you are very cool armorshell. i just finished reading your official rule book. hahahahah. loved it! thanks for keeping it real.

 

[armorshell]

My only issue with NYU is that it is a dental diploma mill, graduating way too many students, which should itself speak volumes as to the quality of education one can expect to receive.

How do you know they are graduating way to many students? Are you well versed in what the optimal dental professor to student ratio should be at a well functioning dental school? Of the processes used by NYU dental administration to manage such a large group of students? Do you know what the actual faculty:student ratio is at NYU? Or are we just wildly conjecturing based on, you guessed it, a single irrelevant data point.

The Commission on Dental Accreditation (A group of people who devote their lives to furthering dental education) seem to think they're doing a fine job, but what do they know, right?

 

[Angle Jr.]

Temple is a good school if you want to try and open your own practice right away, which is really tough. If you want to specialize, work for someone else's practice for a few years or get into a residency somewhere nice like UCLA, then you're pretty screwed. Forget it if you want to get into ortho or oral surgery.

BTW, it was you who made this sweeping statement and derailed the topic of this thread... FYI, one of the current pediatric dentistry residents at UCLA graduated from Temple (Class of 2008). Again, if you want to verify this information, you could try contacting one of the current pediatric dentistry residents at UCLA. Based upon the information I have, I do not believe it is appropriate to state on an internet forum that someone who aspires to specialize at UCLA will be "pretty screwed" by attending Temple.

As I read many of such sweeping statements made by you, I wanted to share my insights into what it takes to specialize, in response to the discussions you created in this thread. I also agree that we should not derail the original topic of the thread anymore. I hope you understand that my intention is not to argue against you but to share the information that I think would be helpful for the readers in developing informed opinions. I wish you best of luck in your dental education.

 

[KMRDENTAL]

I visited Temple Dental School today and was VERY IMPRESSED! It is definitely one of my top choices!

 

[armorshell]

Upenn and Harvard gave us hard copies of their post-doc match rates.

Jee, those hard copies could potentially be a figment of your imagination, hell-bent as you are on proving your point... Oh, are we still assuming the other is lying through their teeth?

My whole point is that certain schools pick better students

This is well known, and absolutely true.

My whole point is that certain schools are better at preparing their students for the boards and for specialization programs, which appears to be in line with what you are already saying, so I don't see any point of disagreement between our points of view.

This is not well known, and the two criteria you noted (Board scores, success in achieving acceptance to post-graduate training) are heavily dependent on pre-existing factors (For example, the whole "better students thing you mentioned). Better students get better boards scores get better residency placements. The school you go to doesn't factor in. The "good schools" take ALL the credit (Via that little website you just posted, or little sheets handed out during the interview) for the work THEIR STUDENTS do.

 

[AskJeeves]

Jee, those hard copies could potentially be a figment of your imagination, hell-bent as you are on proving your point... Oh,are we still assuming the other is lying through their teeth?

Did you notice my little Columbia link?

 

[Skygrandpager]

Upenn and Harvard gave us hard copies of their post-doc match rates. Columbia posted theirs on their website:

http://dental.columbia.edu/education/POSTDOC10YR.pdf

You're welcome.

My whole point is that certain schools pick better students and are better at preparing their students for the boards and for specialization programs, which appears to be in line with what you are already saying, so I don't see any point of disagreement between our points of view.

From these figures one could argue, as many often do, that in NY you are required to do at least a 1-yr residency before you practice, therefore Columbia students who wish to stay in NY must do so. Furthermore, perhaps Columbia students (Just being critical) may enter a GPR/AEGD because they do not feel confident enough to begin practicing upon graduation, ultimately the data could hurt the image of their prestigious dental education (as well as the typo at the end of their pdf, but poop happens).

 

[AskJeeves]

BTW, it was you who made this sweeping statement and derailed the topic of this thread... FYI, one of the current pediatric dentistry residents at UCLA graduated from Temple (Class of 2008). Again, if you want to verify this information, you could try contacting one of the current pediatric dentistry residents at UCLA. Based upon the information I have, I do not believe it is appropriate to state on an internet forum that someone who aspires to specialize at UCLA will be "pretty screwed" by attending Temple.

As I read many of such sweeping statements made by you, I wanted to share my insights into what it takes to specialize, in response to the discussions you created in this thread. I also agree that we should not derail the original topic of the thread anymore. I hope you understand that my intention is not to argue against you but to share the information that I think would be helpful for the readers in developing informed opinions. I wish you best of luck in your dental education.

Have you visited this website? It essentially convinces you that while lower tiered schools have much to be desired, they may be worth your time and money if you can look beyond their drawbacks.

http://toptennation.blogspot.com/2008/02/top-10-easiest-us-dental-schools-to-get.html

But I do agree with you and I apologize to those that I have offended by my statement that Temple students are screwed. I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but in the grand scheme of things, a Temple degree doesn't carry as much weight as a more prestigious institution when it comes to landing a prestigious specialization residency or getting into a prestigious research position or landing an academic position at a prestigious institution. Essentially, what I was trying to say was that your options are generally (but not absolutely) more limited when graduating from Temple as compared with a more prestigious institution, which is just a fact of life.

 

[AskJeeves]

From these figures one could argue, as many often do, that in NY you are required to do at least a one 1-yr residency before you practice, therefore Columbia students who wish to stay in NY must do so. Furthermore, perhaps Columbia students (Just being critical) may enter a GPR/AEGD because they do not feel confident enough to begin practicing upon graduation, ultimately this data hurts image of their prestigious dental education in my eyes.

Did you notice the relatively high grads:Ortho/OMFS ratio? That means one thing to me, you have a better chance of landing an Ortho or OMFS residency upon graduating from an Ivy than you are upon graduating from a lower tier school.

 

[AskJeeves]

UoP students are, on average, also of lower academic caliber than Harvard/Columbia, etc... students. This supports my point, that the school you attend doesn't matter nearly as much as who you already are, in regards to specializing in dentistry at least.

I would disagree with that statement as I believe that UoP would clearly be considered a top 25 dental school and that its students are of high caliber. Also, I believe that UoP grads have historically been able to land prestigious residency programs.

 

[armorshell]

Did you notice my little Columbia link?

Did you notice what I was referring to? I'll make it more obvious.

Upenn and Harvard gave us hard copies

Jee, those hard copies could potentially be a figment of your imagination

 

[Skygrandpager]

graduating from an Ivy than you are upon graduating from a lower tier school.

You put too much weight on an ivy name and it is pathetic. Dental schools aren't tiered (you have to know that much). Your supporting evidence is a blog that hasn't been updated in years ??

 

[armorshell]

Did you notice the relatively high grads:Ortho/OMFS ratio? That means one thing to me, you have a better chance of landing an Ortho or OMFS residency upon graduating from an Ivy than you are upon graduating from a lower tier school.

At least you're capable of admitting that you have no concept that correlation may not equal causation, and that you neither read nor considered (and probably never will) anything I've meticulously posted.

Remember kids, don't eat ice cream in summer, it'll make you drown.

 

[armorshell]

By the way, if at any point you want to address the half dozen arguments I set forth that you've so far ignored, go ahead.

 

[AskJeeves]

By the way, if at any point you want to address the half dozen arguments I set forth that you've so far ignored, go ahead.

Unfortunately, I'm not as computer savvy as you with the block quotes, so I have to address each of your points individually. However, I believe we are essentially arguing for the argument's sake because we share many of the same points.

 

[armorshell]

Unfortunately, I'm not as computer savvy as you with the block quotes, so I have to address each of your points individually. However, I believe we are essentially arguing for the argument's sake because we share many of the same points.

I appreciate your waving of the white flag of truce, but we share none of the same points. You think school choice matters in the residency selection process, I don't. That's all this argument boils down to at this point.

 

[AskJeeves]

I appreciate your waving of the white flag of truce, but we share none of the same points. You think school choice matters in the residency selection process, I don't. That's all this argument boils down to at this point.

We agree that certain schools select students of higher caliber who are more driven to attain residencies at prestigious institutions, which essentially means that one has a greater chance of landing a prestigious residency by merely attending a more prestigious Dental school than one does attending a less prestigious school. I don't see how our opinions differ.

 

[AskJeeves]

You put too much weight on an ivy name and it is pathetic. Dental schools aren't tiered (you have to know that much). Your supporting evidence is a blog that hasn't been updated in years ??

My supporting evidence is based on published verifiable data that prestigious schools provide to the public and the absence of such data from less prestigious schools.

 

[nextuszerodmd]

edited

 

[armorshell]

We agree that certain schools select students of higher caliber who are more driven to attain residencies at prestigious institutions

which essentially means that one has a greater chance of landing a prestigious residency by merely attending a more prestigious Dental school than one does attending a less prestigious school.

Anyone else see the defect in basic logic here.?

You've just told me this:

"If A then B then C

which essentially means that

If D then C."

Your conclusion does not follow your premises. In essence:

DOES NOT COMPUTE

 

[armorshell]

My supporting evidence is based on published verifiable data that prestigious schools provide to the public and the absence of such data from less prestigious schools.

Evidence and statistics are two completely different things. You appear to be very confused about this. Do you understand to basic tenets of reasoning or the scientific method?

Statistics tell us that two things are related, but to connect them causally, you MUST design and effect an experiment. I just sent you some great links to articles where this was done (ignored by you because the data was inconsistent with your world view).

Without a causal connection (determined by experimentation), YOUR STATISTICS ARE LITERALLY MEANINGLESS. Since designing a prospective study on school choice affecting residency selection is incredibly unfeasible, this relegates this discussion to related studies(WHICH YOU IGNORED) and debate, which is what we are currently doing.

In essence, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. You should stop thinking you do.

 

[AskJeeves]

Anyone else see the defect in basic logic here.

You've just told me this:

If A then B then C

which essentially means that

If D than C.

Your conclusion does not follow your premises. In essence:

DOES NOT COMPUTE

I'm just reiterating what you mentioned previously, that more prestigious schools have a tendency to select higher caliber students, who, by their very nature, are going to strive to excel on their boards and academically, which partially explains why less prestigious schools do not produce the same number of grads in prestigious residencies as do more prestigious schools. As such, if I were attending a prestigious school, odds are, I am more driven to excel and I will more likely land a prestigious residency than a counterpart at a less prestigious school. It's all relative, a more competitive environment raises your ability that much more. Don't you agree?

 

[AskJeeves]

Evidence and statistics are two completely different things. You appear to be very confused about this. Do you understand to basic tenets of reasoning or the scientific method?

Statistics tell us that two things are related, but to connect them causally, you MUST design and effect an experiment. I just sent you some great links to articles where this was done (ignored by you because the data was inconsistent with your world view).

Without a causal connection (determined by experimentation), YOUR STATISTICS ARE LITERALLY MEANINGLESS. Since designing a prospective study on school choice affecting residency selection is incredibly unfeasible, this relegates this discussion to related studies(WHICH YOU IGNORED) and debate, which is what we are currently doing.

In essence, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. You should stop thinking you do.

If I had any published data from Temple, NYU, Nova etc. to compare with UCSF, Upenn, UCLA, Harvard, Columbia etc., I would be able to present a better picture of what I am trying to explain. My whole point is that schools like Temple, NYU, NOVA, etc., do not provide such data to the public. And I agree with you that I may be jumping the gun, but silence on the topic suggests to me that the schools are not proud of their numbers and hence choose not to report them, otherwise, if their numbers were good, why would they not boast of them?

 

[Simiam]

Let me rephrase that, snooty pre-dents like Simiam who are in for a rude awakening . . .

Hahahaha That's the first time I've ever been called "snooty!"

and I'm not a PreDent

What rude awakening is that?

I would reply to your other postings, but armorshell already took care of that. Quick question though... I think since you have already mentioned interviewing at Temple, Columbia, Harvard, etc... Where did you get accepted? We'd all like to know that! Hopefully, you're not coming to Temple. I wouldn't want you to have to slum it.

 

[nextuszerodmd]

If I had any published data from Temple, NYU, Nova etc. to compare with UCSF, Upenn, UCLA, Harvard, Columbia etc., I would be able to present a better picture of what I am trying to explain. My whole point is that schools like Temple, NYU, NOVA, etc., do not provide such data to the public. And I agree with you that I may be jumping the gun, but silence on the topic suggests to me that the schools are not proud of their numbers and hence choose not to report them, otherwise, if their numbers were good, why would they not boast of them?

so you're saying if i was a millionaire and wanted to prove it to the public i should make it rain in the club?

 

[armorshell]

I'm just reiterating what you mentioned previously, that more prestigious schools have a tendency to select higher caliber students, who, by their very nature, are going to strive to excel on their boards and academically, which partially explains why less prestigious schools do not produce the same number of grads in prestigious residencies as more prestigious schools. As such, if I were attending a prestigious school, odds are, I am more driven to excel and I will more likely land a prestigious residency than a counterpart at a less prestigious school.

I'm with you with everything you've posted here. Now, given what you've written, at what point does anything the school does for you matter?

Imagine you're a student applying for dental school, who wishes to specialize in the future. You attain acceptance to Expensive Prestigious University and Cheap State School. Expensive Prestigious University boasts I high specialty rate,but costs 2x as much as Cheap State School. Given what you've just written, what reason could you possibly have for choosing Expensive Prestigious University over Cheap State School?

The mere fact alone that you've been accepted to Expensive Prestigious University means you are academically "high tier." Regardless of where you choose, you'll still be "high-tier equivalent", specialization rates and all.

The gist of my argument is, if you looked at all the students in the US who interviewed and got accepted to Columbia (for example), but attended another school, the specialty rate for that group would statistically be the same as the group who actually attended Columbia.

That is a summation of 2 of the 3 articles you just ignored that I posted for you.

 

[AskJeeves]

so you're saying if i was a millionaire and wanted to prove it to the public i should make it rain in the club?

Pardon my ignorance, I don't speak in the colloquial . . .

 

[armorshell]

If I had any published data from Temple, NYU, Nova etc. to compare with UCSF, Upenn, UCLA, Harvard, Columbia etc., I would be able to present a better picture of what I am trying to explain. My whole point is that schools like Temple, NYU, NOVA, etc., do not provide such data to the public. And I agree with you that I may be jumping the gun, but silence on the topic suggests to me that the schools are not proud of their numbers and hence choose not to report them, otherwise, if their numbers were good, why would they not boast of them?

You're again begging the question. You assume that, because your opinion of a good dental school is one with a high specialty rate, everyone's opinion of a good dental school is one with a high specialty rate.

This is simply not true. Many schools are very proud of producing highly competent general dentists. UoP is an example of such a school. (For reference, 15% of my class is specializing, not including GPR/AEGD)

 

[Simiam]

You're again begging the question. You assume that, because your opinion of a good dental school is one with a high specialty rate, everyone's opinion of a good dental school is one with a high specialty rate.

This is simply not true. Many schools are very proud of producing highly competent general dentists. UoP is an example of such a school. (For reference, 15% of my class is specializing, not including GPR/AEGD)

Temple is another example. Very few of my classmates want to specialize. Most want to be very good General Dentists and be done with school. This is also the reason why many of my classmates chose Temple. We're in the ghetto, so we are patient-rich. On any given day patients are turned away because there aren't any available student doctors.

 

[AskJeeves]

I'm with you with everything you've posted here. Now, given what you've written, at what point does anything the school does for you matter?

Imagine you're a student applying for dental school, who wishes to specialize in the future. You attain acceptance to Expensive Prestigious University and Cheap State School. Expensive Prestigious University boasts I high specialty rate,but costs 2x as much as Cheap State School. Given what you've just written, what reason could you possibly have for choosing Expensive Prestigious University over Cheap State School?

The mere fact alone that you've been accepted to Expensive Prestigious University means you are academically "high tier." Regardless of where you choose, you'll still be "high-tier equivalent", specialization rates and all.

The gist of my argument is, if you looked at all the students in the US who interviewed and got accepted to Columbia (for example), but attended another school, the specialty rate for that group would statistically be the same as the group who actually attended Columbia.

That is a summation of 2 of the 3 articles you just ignored that I posted for you.

Well, now you're using the same logic that you faulted me with earlier. I thought we were moving away from the "all things being equal" mode of thinking. Your argument assumes that 1) the same student has the option of attending a less expensive school (keeping in mind that out of state students would have to pay much more for tuition) and 2) that given the option, the student will attend the cheaper school. The reality is that those options are not available to all and even if they were, not every one would choose that route. Also, you did not mention the possibility that prestigious schools have more money for academic scholarships than do less prestigious schools. Regardless, even if your assumptions were true, they would likely effect a handful of students. That is, what you are suggesting is the exception rather than the rule, and I believe we are focusing on the general dental school population.

 

[AskJeeves]

You assume that, because your opinion of a good dental school is one with a high specialty rate, everyone's opinion of a good dental school is one with a high specialty rate.

You think school choice matters in the residency selection process, I don't. That's all this argument boils down to at this point.

I think you are making faulty presumptions. I was under the impression that we were simply discussing whether school choice matters in the residency selection process as you mentioned earlier and with which you subsequently agreed with me. I never opined that a good dental school must produce a high specialty rate. My point was that students of less prestigious schools have fewer options upon graduation.

 

[armorshell]

I think you are making faulty presumptions. I was under the impression that we were simply discussing whether school choice matters in the residency selection process as you mentioned earlier and with which you subsequently agreed with me. I never opined that a good dental school must produce a high specialty rate. My point was that students of less prestigious schools have fewer options upon graduation.

A pass is a 4.0 in the first tier schools like Harvard, Columbia and UCSF that rely on the pass/fail grading system

I don't know anything about the quality of the Ortho program at UCONN, I just presented it because it was readily accessible online and it supports the onbious fact that competitive residencies have a preference for students from top tier schools, i.e., UCSF, Harvard, etc.

In this thread all the schools you've described as "first-tier" have high specialty rates. That is simply a correlation, but since by your logic correlation equals causation, and YOU'RE the one saying them, I must assume they're related.

My second assumption is that by describing something as first tier, you're denigrating lower-tiered schools. My logic is sound and fitting with all my previous arguments.

 

[armorshell]

Well, now you're using the same logic that you faulted me with earlier. I thought we were moving away from the "all things being equal" mode of thinking.

First of all, I'll preface this with the fact that I was clearly posting an ANALOGY. An analogy is a simplified demonstration of principles to more clearly make a point, not a real life scenario. This is why I set up the scenario with the word 'Imagine'.

Well1) the same student has the option of attending a less expensive school (keeping in mind that out of state students would have to pay much more for tuition)

In my analogy (Again, which I only provided to help you understand my point of view), I clearly stated the student did have the option.

2) that given the option, the student will attend the cheaper school. The reality is that those options are not available to all and even if they were, not every one would choose that route. Also, you did not mention the possibility that prestigious schools have more money for academic scholarships than do less prestigious schools.

In my analogy (Again, which I only provided to help you understand my point of view), I clearly stated Expensive Prestigious University costs 2x as much as Cheap State School.

ANALOGY.

Also, since you've cleverly ignored the only part of that post that wasn't analogy, I'll post it again:

The gist of my argument is, if you looked at all the students in the US who interviewed and got accepted to Columbia (for example), but attended another school, the specialty rate for that group would statistically be the same as the group who actually attended Columbia.

That is a summation of 2 of the 3 articles you just ignored that I posted for you.

 

[Simiam]

I can put forth a cogent argument that says who is invited is more important. Who a school invites to interview is indicative of the type of student the school wants, and involves less active choice on the student's part (students often attend interviews as "backups", or schools they won't actually attend because of financial or geographical reasons. Looking at acceptances puts much more emphasis on student choice.

Since OMFS is a match though, I'll give that one to you. The students that were accepted are from UW, UK, UoP, UoP and UCSF. As far as the competitiveness of the program, average boards score for that group is 95+.



Are you finding evidence to support your opinion or basing your opinion on evidence? Are you sure the chicken came before the egg? How do you know? Isn't this just the pot calling the kettle black?

Besides, what is a single piece of evidence in a complete vacuum? You spew vitriol about how you're the only one posting evidence, but waxed on for almost a page about your unverifiable "10 friends" who all have eerily similar traits. You claim you have published evidence from Harvard, Penn and Columbia but can't produce it, making it as sketchy as anything else in this thread. That fact that you think that real, objective, worthwhile data about this topic exists, and that YOU'RE showing it to us is simply sad and a little pathetic.



If that was your original post, than how is this off topic? Also, you realize the evaluation of "quality" of a dental school is exquisitely subjective, right? And we all know you, AskJeeves, master of statistics and objectivity, would never submit that you have a absolute answer to a purely subjective question, right?



Ah yes, a re-statement of rule 34a of the pre-dental forum (a single data point is a statistically significant sample size). Funny how all that separates your single data point and mine is that I actually experienced and met all the people in question, and you simply googled for something that supported your stance.

Oh wait, did you just literally say you presented it because is supported your argument? You who are so immune from confirmation bias, and you who only believe in the truth?!!



You've misunderstood what I meant by "I hate bias quoters." Bias quoters are a common variety of internet poster, who in arguments will search wikipedia for every type of formal logical fallacy and apply them, often incorrectly, to the arguments they face, instead of actually addressing the argument itself. That comment was a self-deprecating jape at my own quoting of the confirmation bias you (and we all) so heartily profess.

There's another kind of annoying internet poster though, who again, instead of addressing the argument itself, tries to find foibles in the language, spelling or grammar of their opponent. Congrats, you're officially a grammar nazi.

Here's a link to the official rules of the pre-dent forum (http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=391959). I'll refer you to rule 6 (Pre-dents know more than actual dents).

Here's a link to some actual research on the subject of school choice affecting life outcomes to get you started on something with actual substance. There's 15-20 years of educational literature (Much of it, ironically, from Harvard graduates) showing that school choice (specifically, attending so-called "better" schools) doesn't affect either life, career or educational outcomes.

These should get you started:

http://papers.nber.org/papers/w13443

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...o.edu/levitt/Papers/CullenJacobLevitt2003.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w7322

Oh, did you think I was just making all of this up? I've posted links to these and similar articles at least a dozen times on SDN, and they're readily accessible at any library. Have you actually done any research into the topic of school choice besides half-heartedly googling some some irrelevant statistics?

An important quality of a health care practitioner is that you desperately try to put the egg before the chicken, i.e. use the evidence to develop your opinion. We don't always succeed, but YOU might want to try a little harder. For fun, do some of your half-hearted googling of my first hundred posts and you'll see they sound a lot like yours.

AskJeeves, you really should quote Armor on his own "publications" since you love them so much...

I refer you to rule 38.

38. The "official" dental school ranking is as follows:

1) Harvard
2) Columbia
3) Penn

Who cares about the rest, they are not ivy and cannot possibly be worth your time and money.


!!!!!!!!!!!!