Here is my take on this guys. Take it with a grain of salt. I think DAT and GPA should be weighed the same AND the undergraduate school and major you had should be taken into account. Here is why.
1. Why your undergraduate school should matter in regards to admissions. Although it is impossible to say one institution is absolutely better than the other, some schools have tougher programs and classes. Although Cal Poly Pamona might have a good CS program and might teach the basic fundamentals of CS as MIT, the program will not be as vigorous and in depth. Agree? Some might argue that it is not necessarily different or more in depth material, but the competition which makes some schools more difficult. Since, the program is ranked high more people want to attend the school and it is more difficult to get in. The students are therefore generally smarter and the competition is more difficult. With more competition, assignments and tests will be more difficult. Hence the course will be more in depth and students will learn more. This is why your undergraduate school and major should be taken into account. I have taken classes at a Cal state, JC and graduated from UCI. The difficulty of the courses is not comparable. I see it as an exponential increase in difficulty, from the JC to Cal State to UC.
2. Why GPA and DAT should be weighed equally, BUT also correlated to your undergraduate school. GPA is definitely important, but a 3.9 from John Hopkins does not equate to a 3.9 at Cal State Fullerton (no offense). GPA shows how hard you have worked over the past four years. No matter how easy the school is or your major, if you got a 4.0 over 4 years then you put in a lot of effort. Here is the catch though. Although you did put in a lot of effort, can you equate it to the effort someone else put in at a more difficult school? Yes. The DAT. The DAT shows how much you effort you have put in, how much you have learned, and how much science comprehension you have been able to maintain. It also shows the quality of education your undergraduate school provided.
Generally students who went to better undergraduate institutions will score better on the DAT.
Example:
Student 1. Got a 3.0 from John Hopkins or UCSD, which have very good bio programs. He then gets a 22 22 22 on his DAT. This is around 97th percentile let us say. This shows that the student has put in the a great deal effort to learn during his 4 years and has a firm grasp of science needed for dental school.
Student 2. Got a 3.8 from Cal State ..., which is also a good school, but does not have as good of a Bio program as John Hopkins or UCSD. Many Cal States do not offer ADVANCED courses in immunology, histology, microbiology, phisiology..etc. This student gets a 17 17 20 on his or her DAT. This is around 50th percentile let us say.
Which student is a better candidate? It is hard to say, but many schools would not accept the 3.0 because it is too low. Most of the schools in the nation favor high GPA over DAT. Some schools require high in both. I think the schools should definitely look at each student by a case by case basis. Many schools will deny you if you don't have a certain GPA, but I know many people that have gotten into dental school with lower than 50th percentile on the DAT. IMO candidate number one is a better candidate. This person would have hard time getting into most dental schools though, since most favor a high GPA.
I don't care what anyone says or what their excuses are. If you have a 4.0 and get a 16 TS or AA on your DAT, you undergraduate education should definitely be questioned. There is no way you should be getting scores that low with a GPA that high. I dont see why schools cannot see this and still accept students with really low DAT scores. It is obvious the students with these scores took easy classes or went to an easy school and did not learn anything. I think if you went to a decent undergraduate school and maintained a decent GPA you should be able to get a 17 AA and TS without even studying. Thats just my honest opinion. The DAT standardizes and levels the playing field for everyone.
If you spend 4 hours a day studying in undergrad I am sure you can get a 3.8 or higher, easily. Many people had to work two jobs while going to school and still managed to learn the material and do fairly well. They might have not had the 4 hours a day to read and remember all the minor details to get that A, but they still learned the material. If they do well on the DAT, then it shows that. The other person with the 3.8 might have been able to learn it for the test, but forgot all of it and did poorly on the DAT. Do you want your dentist forgetting the material he or she learned in dental school? The reason why the DAT is important, because in dental school the pace is very rapid and you will not have 4 hours a day to study and remember all those small details. Their is a large amount of material and it is very dense; you do not have that much time to study. You have to be able to learn it once and remember it. That is also why GPA should not be seen as an absolute number and should be a case by case basis.
To whoever said that UCSD was easy to get into and rich kids can get into the program easily, I hope you are not serious? UCSD has one of the best BIO programs in the nation. Their standards are very high. I did not go to UCSD, but had many friends that did. Ask any of them what they got on their DAT or MCAT.
j/k
