Definition of AVERAGE?!?

[Tini]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Although I am a new member of SDN, I have been an avid reader for a few months now. From what I can see, it appears that a majority of the DAT stats posted by people are quite high (21-23)! I can see how this can be quite discouraging to those who have not received a score that high (including me). However, when I research multiple schools (mainly at predents.com), the schools DAT averages are no where near this. Most schools DAT averages of enrolled students are between 18-20. Is it reasonable to keep in mind the definition of "average" in that schools with an average of 19 accept just as many 20s, as it does 18s and so on?

...or maybe I am just trying to make myself feel better🙁

 

[alexamasan]

In terms of DAT scores, 18 is about average. People who come on this forum often tend to score high because of all the exchange of information and advice that goes around here. So you're doing something right by visiting the forum .

 

[Tini]

In terms of DAT scores, 18 is about average. People who come on this forum often tend to score high because of all the exchange of information and advice that goes around here. So you're doing something right by visiting the forum .

is 18 average enrolled, or average overall? Because predents lists them as average enrolled, not average overall (keeping in mind that not everyone creates an account at predents.)

 

[adnguyen]

I think the overall average is more in the range of 16-17

 

[CrazyTeeth]

Although I am a new member of SDN, I have been an avid reader for a few months now. From what I can see, it appears that a majority of the DAT stats posted by people are quite high (21-23)! I can see how this can be quite discouraging to those who have not received a score that high (including me). However, when I research multiple schools (mainly at predents.com), the schools DAT averages are no where near this. Most schools DAT averages of enrolled students are between 18-20. Is it reasonable to keep in mind the definition of "average" in that schools with an average of 19 accept just as many 20s, as it does 18s and so on?

...or maybe I am just trying to make myself feel better🙁

Shouldn't you have an idea of what "average" is from the forum by now? You'll get a rough approximation from predents.com and the school websites will give you an average for students they've accepted in previous years. Just gauge according to which school you've applied to... to see their averages.

 

[SuperTank]

I don't really buy the ADA statement that 17 is average. I don't think I have ever seen a 16 AA... but shouldn't that be way more likely than a 20 AA? I have seen TONS of 20 AAs... never anything below a 17. Or how about PAT scores? I have heard of a couple of 15's... but shouldn't we see as many below 18 than above?

 

[Vicviper]

I don't really buy the ADA statement that 17 is average. I don't think I have ever seen a 16 AA... but shouldn't that be way more likely than a 20 AA? I have seen TONS of 20 AAs... never anything below a 17. Or how about PAT scores? I have heard of a couple of 15's... but shouldn't we see as many below 18 than above?

I'm sure lots of people get them, they just don't don't usually proclaim to the world that they did get a low score. From what I had read previously, the enrolled average was closer to 19AA and 3.4-5 GPA... doc probably has some information on this. A 20 AA is an amazing score, and if my 22AA was 96th percentile higher than all other test takers, clearly 20AA would still have to be pretty high up there, and I'm guessing it would be no less than an 85% percentile (so only 15% get 20 or above). Anyone have any recent test percentiles?

SDN isn't always the best sampling for the dental school applicant pool.

 

[Dentite99]

Yup, I got a 20AA (87.1%) 20PA (85.4%). I was pretty happy with it.

 

[Philippines03j]

Yes, My 19 AA= 79%, 20TS =88% 21Pat=93%

Its hard to say what average is also. Scores can obviously affect whether you get in to a school or not but there are many other factors that go into it. I am just throwing out some random thoughts but maybe those who get in with 17s and what not are those with great ECs and have other desirable qualities?

 

[Extirpator]

22aa (96.4) 23pat (98.1)

I don't have my scores handy, but 23 pat was 98.something... I think 98.1

 

[UIC]

I don't really buy the ADA statement that 17 is average. I don't think I have ever seen a 16 AA... but shouldn't that be way more likely than a 20 AA? I have seen TONS of 20 AAs... never anything below a 17. Or how about PAT scores? I have heard of a couple of 15's... but shouldn't we see as many below 18 than above?

Not necessarily. Ill give you a hypothetical example, suppose 25,000 people got 18, 8,000 got 19, 3000 got 20, 1000 got 21, 500 got 22. The average would be 18.4 as I calculated it. Notice how no one got below 18 yet the average is still in the 18 range. Now Im not saying that same applies to this year cycle since there are some with 16s and 17s but Im giving you an idea of how the average doesn't necessarily mean there has to be equal numbers below the average and above.

 

[doc toothache]

Not necessarily. Ill give you a hypothetical example, suppose 25,000 people got 18, 8,000 got 19, 3000 got 20, 1000 got 21, 500 got 22. The average would be 18.4 as I calculated it. Notice how no one got below 18 yet the average is still in the 18 range. Now Im not saying that same applies to this year cycle since there are some with 16s and 17s but Im giving you an idea of how the average doesn't necessarily mean there has to be equal numbers below the average and above.

Your calculations may be correct but your hypothetical example does not exist in the real world, where the distribution will fit nicely under a Bell curve.

 

[uncbestyet]

Tried to copy and paste info from the ADA site, but it wouldn't work. But DOC is right that the scores are a nice bell curve with 17 as the mean. (For whole population that takes the test)

If you go to the ADA website - see link below
Go to the DAT users manual - page 24 of 51

You will see AA results from 1995, 2000, and 2005. Over those years it looks like the average has shifted from 15-16 to 17.

http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/dat/index.asp


But UIC makes a good point - example taken from ADEA Official Guide to schools 2009:

UNC enrollees (people attending) 2008
- AA range 17-27 but the mean = 19

- TS range 17-30 but the mean = 19



Point -
For everyone who takes the test - scores fall under bellcurve
For those accepted to UNC (example) - scores are numbers to right of 16 under the same bell curve

 

[americanpierg]

Your calculations may be correct but your hypothetical example does not exist in the real world, where the distribution will fit nicely under a Bell curve.

depends on what youre talking about. if the average of ALL applicants is a 18.4, then itll fit in the bell curve and his hypothetical example wouldnt be right, considering they grade the exam that way anyways.

BUT, if they said the average of all ENROLLED were 18.4, then that example would be perfectly plausible, though not as extreme (and i would argue even correct) as they could easily cutoff all those applicants with a score of under 17 or something. Since the majority of the population gets around an 18 anyways, the majority that are accepted will be around an 18 and the DAT average will be skewed around there even if no one got accepted with a 16 or below.

 

[sfrice80]

That comment about not trusting the ADA is funny, why would they want to mislead you? Its a big conspiracy to mislead all pre-dental students by lowering the actual national average on the DAT! Come on....the average is around a 17 but like earlier stated people aren't going to proclaim to the world their low scores and trust me people get those scores, some do post on SDN but most dont.

 

[UCB05]

Not necessarily. Ill give you a hypothetical example, suppose 25,000 people got 18, 8,000 got 19, 3000 got 20, 1000 got 21, 500 got 22. The average would be 18.4 as I calculated it. Notice how no one got below 18 yet the average is still in the 18 range. Now Im not saying that same applies to this year cycle since there are some with 16s and 17s but Im giving you an idea of how the average doesn't necessarily mean there has to be equal numbers below the average and above.

You can "average" standardized scores in analysis of applicants, attending, overall, etc., but you're missing the whole concept of standardized scores from the start. The ADA arbitrarily sets 17 as the average standardized score for every test and section. In your example, you're using a raw score example (out of 30 possible questions), which the ADA would then place a "17" on the 18.4 raw score that you used. This is where most people misunderstand the concept.

 

[UIC]

You can "average" standardized scores in analysis of applicants, attending, overall, etc., but you're missing the whole concept of standardized scores from the start. The ADA arbitrarily sets 17 as the average standardized score for every test and section. In your example, you're using a raw score example (out of 30 possible questions), which the ADA would then place a "17" on the 18.4 raw score that you used. This is where most people misunderstand the concept.

But when you finish the test, they give you your score right away, no? so how would they arbitrarily set the 18.4 as 17 when there are still some people taking the test? Maybe Im confused with what you're saying

 

[doc toothache]

BUT, if they said the average of all ENROLLED were 18.4, then that example would be perfectly plausible, though not as extreme (and i would argue even correct) as they could easily cutoff all those applicants with a score of under 17 or something. Since the majority of the population gets around an 18 anyways, the majority that are accepted will be around an 18 and the DAT average will be skewed around there even if no one got accepted with a 16 or below.

The example would be "perfectly plausible" if you could find a school(s) that enrolled 37,500.

 

[UIC]

The example would be "perfectly plausible" if you could find a school(s) that enrolled 37,500.

Take out the 0s in my example so that the total enrolled is 38 and the average would still be the same....

 

[Tini]

But when you finish the test, they give you your score right away, no? so how would they arbitrarily set the 18.4 as 17 when there are still some people taking the test? Maybe Im confused with what you're saying

Following the completion of the DAT, a person receives an "unofficial Score report," which is then audited. If the audit displays a different score than that received on the unofficial score report, will the test taker be notified of these changes? Maybe my score is different than what I thought it was...I was going off of the unofficial score report!

 

[UCB05]

But when you finish the test, they give you your score right away, no? so how would they arbitrarily set the 18.4 as 17 when there are still some people taking the test? Maybe Im confused with what you're saying

I presume you are given a standarized score against a rolling historical curve.

 

[UCB05]

But when you finish the test, they give you your score right away, no? so how would they arbitrarily set the 18.4 as 17 when there are still some people taking the test? Maybe Im confused with what you're saying

Just imagine in ADA land, the words "average raw score" is changed to "17"

 

[americanpierg]

The example would be "perfectly plausible" if you could find a school(s) that enrolled 37,500.

""THOUGH NOT AS EXTREME"". if you're gonna practice selective reading, pick the right parts to emphasize

Does having 20 people with a 23AA mean you need 20 people with a 15AA to get an average of 19AA. No. Sure its possible, but its more likely that 20 people got a 23AA and 80 people got a 18AA. Of course in a real situation, the distribution will be smoother and not quite as extreme as this, but you get the point. Which situation is more plausible?... Exactly.

elementary statistics...cant really explain it any better. thats why averages are useless if you don't have stats on standard deviations along with them

 

[americanpierg]

You can "average" standardized scores in analysis of applicants, attending, overall, etc., but you're missing the whole concept of standardized scores from the start. The ADA arbitrarily sets 17 as the average standardized score for every test and section. In your example, you're using a raw score example (out of 30 possible questions), which the ADA would then place a "17" on the 18.4 raw score that you used. This is where most people misunderstand the concept.

I think you are misunderstanding the entire point of his post alltogether. The 18.4 is not the average "raw" score. The 18.4 is the average STANDARDIZED score. Getting an 18 in any section does not mean you got 18 out of 30 questions right, it means your standardized score is already an 18 and thats that, no more calculations nor comparisions of other stats to calculate your score.

He's not grading it out of 30 "questions" in his example, The "30" is the max possible standardized score you can get on the DAT.

 

[doc toothache]

elementary statistics...cant really explain it any better. thats why averages are useless if you don't have stats on standard deviations along with them

That's probably why they are universally used.

 

[UCB05]

I think you are misunderstanding the entire point of his post alltogether. The 18.4 is not the average "raw" score. The 18.4 is the average STANDARDIZED score. Getting an 18 in any section does not mean you got 18 out of 30 questions right, it means your standardized score is already an 18 and thats that, no more calculations nor comparisions of other stats to calculate your score.

He's not grading it out of 30 "questions" in his example, The "30" is the max possible standardized score you can get on the DAT.

Sigh...Please go back and understand what I was saying. He was trying to show how a 17 could not be the average of DAT scores based on the numbers he was using. He was using a raw scoring method but failed to realize 17 is an arbitrary point (used on a 30 scale) set to represent the overall average.

 

[UCB05]

Not to confuse the issue (as there seems to be enough confusion already) but maybe a ranking example and analogy may help.

Average DAT scores of all tests administered (17-definite)< Average DAT score of all DS applicants (18?)< Average DAT score of all DS matriculants (19?) < Average DAT score posted on SDN = scores posted on Predents (20+?). Not sure where the confusion is coming from.

Analogy: Average height of men in US (5'9" ?)< average height of boys high school basketball team<average height of men's college basketball team< NBA average

 

[UIC]

I think you are misunderstanding the entire point of his post alltogether. The 18.4 is not the average "raw" score. The 18.4 is the average STANDARDIZED score. Getting an 18 in any section does not mean you got 18 out of 30 questions right, it means your standardized score is already an 18 and thats that, no more calculations nor comparisions of other stats to calculate your score.

He's not grading it out of 30 "questions" in his example, The "30" is the max possible standardized score you can get on the DAT.

Thank you, I thought I was the confused one seemed like he was. This is exactly what I was talking about.

 

[UIC]

Sigh...Please go back and understand what I was saying. He was trying to show how a 17 could not be the average of DAT scores based on the numbers he was using. He was using a raw scoring method but failed to realize 17 is an arbitrary point (used on a 30 scale) set to represent the overall average.

I did not say that 17 cannot be the average of DAT. I just used that hypothetical example to try to make a point regarding SuperTank's post.

 

[UCB05]

I did not say that 17 cannot be the average of DAT. I just used that hypothetical example to try to make a point regarding SuperTank's post.

First, let's just get this straight, 17 is the average. The gist of what SuperTank was saying is that one would expect a equal number of scores below the average (again, 17) as you would above. In a normal distribution, that is a good possibility, although a better consideration with the median should be included in the discussion. In you own example, more scored below the average than above. In fact, the lesser the number of really low scores will lead to a larger percentage of scores below the average. Again, 17 is the average score arbitrarily selected by the ADA on a 30 point scale. This works well for most sections except RC and QR where the mean is to the right of the median in QR and to the left of the median in RC.

 

[Tini]

wow, I had no idea my thread would lead to such a heated discussion! Sorry for the confusion😱

 

[javan287]

As far as what's "average" on the DAT I think Vicviper hit the nail on the head saying that people who get low scores tend not to tell everyone they know about them -- Not to mention the amount of people who may be less than honest in telling other people what their scores might have been.

As I'm sure it's been said, there's certainly a difference in the average DAT score between all test-takers and the average DAT score between matriculants.

 

[The Anhedonia]

Look at the people who post on SDN: a bunch of type A's with high stats. you'll see the same names posting most ofter, so SDN is not a representative cross-section of 'average' applicants.

 

[Tini]

I completely agree with javan287...The main reason for my post was to put focus on the average DAT scores for matriculated students based off of predents.com, not the average DAT scores for all who have taken the test or who have applied

 

[UIC]

First, let's just get this straight, 17 is the average. The gist of what SuperTank was saying is that one would expect a equal number of scores below the average (again, 17) as you would above. In a normal distribution, that is a good possibility, although a better consideration with the median should be included in the discussion. In you own example, more scored below the average than above. In fact, the lesser the number of really low scores will lead to a larger percentage of scores below the average. Again, 17 is the average score arbitrarily selected by the ADA on a 30 point scale. This works well for most sections except RC and QR where the mean is to the right of the median in QR and to the left of the median in RC.

What I don't understand is the fact that everyone gets their score (unofficial) right after taking the test. How can the ADA arbitrarily assign the average when there are still people talking the test. You presume that you are given a standarized score against a rolling historical curve. But if thats the case, why would Dental schools allow you to send unofficial score reports to them if the official scores can significantly change?

 

[UCB05]

What I don't understand is the fact that everyone gets their score (unofficial) right after taking the test. How can the ADA arbitrarily assign the average when there are still people talking the test. You presume that you are given a standarized score against a rolling historical curve. But if thats the case, why would Dental schools allow you to send unofficial score reports to them if the official scores can significantly change?

How can they change significantly? A sudden rush of significantly higher/lower scores from that day that will somehow change the overall average of a much, much larger pool of results derived over the past year or so? Highly unlikely. I'm sure the corresponding standardized score can change as the average of that version improves or worsens over time, perhaps requiring the ADA to recalibrate once every year or so, but not during that very narrow window of time between when an unofficial version is faxed and the official version arrives at the schools.

 

[UIC]

How can they change significantly? A sudden rush of significantly higher/lower scores from that day that will somehow change the overall average of a much, much larger pool of results derived over the past year or so? Highly unlikely. I'm sure the corresponding standardized score can change as the average of that version improves or worsens over time, perhaps requiring the ADA to recalibrate once every year or so, but not during that very narrow window of time between when an unofficial version is faxed and the official version arrives at the schools.

Ok nevermind I see the confusion. You thought that when I made the example on 18.4 that I was referring to the number of questions right out of a possible 30 but I was referring to the standardized score. And this whole time I was trying to see what you were talking about when you said they can assign the average STANDARDIZED score of 18 to a 17.

 

[americanpierg]

That's probably why they are universally used.

Yes, of course averages are universally used without an accompanying standard deviation statistic, but that's also why people like you who fail to think end up misinterpreting them. This would just all end if they released the median DAT score too, or if people just took a simple math class...

 

[bhind]

I came across this today and thought it was interesting.

http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/d..._frequency.pdf

password: ada

 

[americanpierg]

Ok nevermind I see the confusion. You thought that when I made the example on 18.4 that I was referring to the number of questions right out of a possible 30 but I was referring to the standardized score. And this whole time I was trying to see what you were talking about when you said they can assign the average STANDARDIZED score of 18 to a 17.

Lol yea... 6 more posts from UCB05 and he still doesnt see this.

So PLEASE, take 10 seconds to read this post before commenting further.

SURE they can arbitrarily set a SCORE of 19 TS as the "average" score (50% of all test takers can get above or blow this, no matter if its 80/100 correct or 99/100 correct) if they wanted.

BUTTT if it is reported that the AVERAGE TS (which is ALREADY standardized) of all enrolled is a 21.1, thats that. that means the mean TS score (which is already standardized) of all enrolled is a 21.1. Even if the test was changed so that a TS of 15 is now the average of all test takers, that still doesnt change the fact that the enrolled TS is still a 21.1 if the average TS of everyone enrolled is still a 21.1. EXAMPLE: TS of 18 is the average of all test takers. 5 kids get into harvard with a 25TS. The average TS of all enrolled at harvard is 25. A year later, the scale is changed so now the average TS is arbitrarily set at 13. 5 kids once again get into harvard with a 25 TS. The average TS of all enrolled at harvard is STILL a 25 and will still be reported as a 25, even if it holds more weight than a 25 the previous year.


Please just take 10 seconds to read and i promise you it will all be clear.

 

[americanpierg]

I came across this today and thought it was interesting.

http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/d..._frequency.pdf

password: ada

this is for all testakers... the stats reported at each school is for enrolled

 

[UCB05]

Lol yea... 6 more posts from UCB05 and he still doesnt see this.

So PLEASE, take 10 seconds to read this post before commenting further.

SURE they can arbitrarily set a SCORE of 19 TS as the "average" score (50% of all test takers can get above or blow this, no matter if its 80/100 correct or 99/100 correct) if they wanted.

BUTTT if it is reported that the AVERAGE TS (which is ALREADY standardized) of all enrolled is a 21.1, thats that. that means the mean TS score (which is already standardized) of all enrolled is a 21.1. Even if the test was changed so that a TS of 15 is now the average of all test takers, that still doesnt change the fact that the enrolled TS is still a 21.1 if the average TS of everyone enrolled is still a 21.1. EXAMPLE: TS of 18 is the average of all test takers. 5 kids get into harvard with a 25TS. The average TS of all enrolled at harvard is 25. A year later, the scale is changed so now the average TS is arbitrarily set at 13. 5 kids once again get into harvard with a 25 TS. The average TS of all enrolled at harvard is STILL a 25 and will still be reported as a 25, even if it holds more weight than a 25 the previous year.


Please just take 10 seconds to read and i promise you it will all be clear.

I see it very clearly, maybe you should use a bunch of those 10 seconds and follow the conversation;

SuperTank: "I don't really buy the ADA statement that 17 is average. I don't think I have ever seen a 16 AA... but shouldn't that be way more likely than a 20 AA? I have seen TONS of 20 AAs... never anything below a 17. Or how about PAT scores? I have heard of a couple of 15's... but shouldn't we see as many below 18 than above?" Topic is average score on the DAT (which is 17) of tests taken, not "of those applying to DS", "accepted to DS", "enrolled in DS" or "on SDN", just the average DAT score.

UIC: "Not necessarily. Ill give you a hypothetical example, suppose 25,000 people got 18, 8,000 got 19, 3000 got 20, 1000 got 21, 500 got 22. The average would be 18.4 as I calculated it. Notice how no one got below 18 yet the average is still in the 18 range. Now Im not saying that same applies to this year cycle since there are some with 16s and 17s but Im giving you an idea of how the average doesn't necessarily mean there has to be equal numbers below the average and above. Actually, UIC's example showed that there are actually MORE people BELOW (25,000) the average(18.4) than above (12,500). Two problems here. First UIC's premise was that SuperTank was wrong in assuming that there were more people below the average (16 vs. 17) than above (20 vs. 17) yet UIC with his own example proved SuperTank's ealier comment was correct (in the real world, anyone who will argue that there are more 20s than 16s is just plain wrong) . So was UIC directly contradicting himself? Or was he misunderstanding the standardize scoring method? By blatantly using numbers above 17 (18,19,20,21,22), and 32,500 test scores (in the realm of ALL DATs taken in a year) and his misunderstanding his own example, I presumed he misunderstood the standardized scoring method. Otherwise, he (and you) would simply agree that a 17 IS the average score of all tests taken for a given version.

As for your babble above:" SURE they can arbitrarily set a SCORE of 19 TS as the "average" score (50% of all test takers can get above or blow this, no matter if its 80/100 correct or 99/100 correct) if they wanted. They call this the "median", not "average" LOL.

Any of my other posts you disagree with? Also, try not to use the same selective reading you accuse others of doing as I started my original post with: You can "average" standardized scores in analysis of applicants, attending, overall, etc.,

 

[americanpierg]

I see it very clearly, maybe you should use a bunch of those 10 seconds and follow the conversation;

SuperTank: "I don't really buy the ADA statement that 17 is average. I don't think I have ever seen a 16 AA... but shouldn't that be way more likely than a 20 AA? I have seen TONS of 20 AAs... never anything below a 17. Or how about PAT scores? I have heard of a couple of 15's... but shouldn't we see as many below 18 than above?" Topic is average score on the DAT (which is 17) of tests taken, not "of those applying to DS", "accepted to DS", "enrolled in DS" or "on SDN", just the average DAT score.

UIC: "Not necessarily. Ill give you a hypothetical example, suppose 25,000 people got 18, 8,000 got 19, 3000 got 20, 1000 got 21, 500 got 22. The average would be 18.4 as I calculated it. Notice how no one got below 18 yet the average is still in the 18 range. Now Im not saying that same applies to this year cycle since there are some with 16s and 17s but Im giving you an idea of how the average doesn't necessarily mean there has to be equal numbers below the average and above. Actually, UIC's example showed that there are actually MORE people BELOW (25,000) the average(18.4) than above (12,500). Two problems here. First UIC's premise was that SuperTank was wrong in assuming that there were more people below the average (16 vs. 17) than above (20 vs. 17) yet UIC with his own example proved SuperTank's ealier comment was correct (in the real world, anyone who will argue that there are more 20s than 16s is just plain wrong) . So was UIC directly contradicting himself? Or was he misunderstanding the standardize scoring method? By blatantly using numbers above 17 (18,19,20,21,22), and 32,500 test scores (in the realm of ALL DATs taken in a year) and his misunderstanding his own example, I presumed he misunderstood the standardized scoring method. Otherwise, he (and you) would simply agree that a 17 IS the average score of all tests taken for a given version.

As for your babble above:" SURE they can arbitrarily set a SCORE of 19 TS as the "average" score (50% of all test takers can get above or blow this, no matter if its 80/100 correct or 99/100 correct) if they wanted. They call this the "median", not "average" LOL.

Any of my other posts you disagree with? Also, try not to use the same selective reading you accuse others of doing as I started my original post with: You can "average" standardized scores in analysis of applicants, attending, overall, etc.,

LOL you're shifting your arguement towards something totally irrevelent to what you were talking about in the first place


"""You can "average" standardized scores in analysis of applicants, attending, overall, etc., but you're missing the whole concept of standardized scores from the start. The ADA arbitrarily sets 17 as the average standardized score for every test and section. In your example, you're using a raw score example (out of 30 possible questions), which the ADA would then place a "17" on the 18.4 raw score that you used. This is where most people misunderstand the concept. """"


This is what you said in your first post ever in this thread. 18.4 he used is NOT a raw score. The 18.4 he used represents the average of the ALREADY standardized scores. I've never seen ADA release statistics on the raw scores for any DAT exam. Every statistic they give out is the STANDARDIZED score. Even on your score sheet they don't tell you your "raw" score, you'll never know if you got 10 out of 30 questions right or 30 out of 30. The WHOLE point of everytihng we've been trying to tell you, but since you wont open up your mind for a second to listen, is that the 18.4 mentioned is ALREADY the standardized score. Theyre not gonna standardize an ALREADY standardized score, that makes absolutely no sense.

Just be man (or woman) enough to admit when you're wrong.

 

[UCB05]

LOL you're shifting your arguement towards something totally irrevelent to what you were talking about in the first place


"""You can "average" standardized scores in analysis of applicants, attending, overall, etc., but you're missing the whole concept of standardized scores from the start. The ADA arbitrarily sets 17 as the average standardized score for every test and section. In your example, you're using a raw score example (out of 30 possible questions), which the ADA would then place a "17" on the 18.4 raw score that you used. This is where most people misunderstand the concept. """"


This is what you said in your first post ever in this thread. 18.4 he used is NOT a raw score. The 18.4 he used represents the average of the ALREADY standardized scores. I've never seen ADA release statistics on the raw scores for any DAT exam. Every statistic they give out is the STANDARDIZED score. Even on your score sheet they don't tell you your "raw" score, you'll never know if you got 10 out of 30 questions right or 30 out of 30. The WHOLE point of everytihng we've been trying to tell you, but since you wont open up your mind for a second to listen, is that the 18.4 mentioned is ALREADY the standardized score. Theyre not gonna standardize an ALREADY standardized score, that makes absolutely no sense.

Just be man (or woman) enough to admit when you're wrong.

LOL. Never shifted the argument, just saw inconsistencies you plainly missed. Open your mind up and read what I already explained. Although UIC uses numbers 18-22, he never once mentioned they were "standardized scores" did he? You and I know he meant standardized (and I'm not about nit-picking this glaring ommision), but coupled with his own contradiction with his own example to contradict SuperTank's correct statement that there should be more 16s than 20s, lead me to conclude that he was using (incorrect) raw score reasoning. Now run along.

 

[UIC]

LOL. Never shifted the argument, just saw inconsistencies you plainly missed. Open your mind up and read what I already explained. Although UIC uses numbers 18-22, he never once mentioned they were "standardized scores" did he? You and I know he meant standardized (and I'm not about nit-picking this glaring ommision), but coupled with his own contradiction with his own example to contradict SuperTank's correct statement that there should be more 16s than 20s, lead me to conclude that he was using (incorrect) raw score reasoning. Now run along.

If you read post #24 he clearly tried to tell you that I was referring to the standardized score not the raw sore. You even read it hence you quoted it but I don't know why you were still posting as if I was still referring to the raw score after that post was made.

Why is it that everyone else knew I was talking about the standardized score but you thought I was talking about the raw score? Where in my post does it give you a hint that I was referring to the raw score and not the standardized score?

 

[UCB05]

If you read post #24 he clearly tried to tell you that I was referring to the standardized score not the raw sore. You even read it hence you quoted it but I don't know why you were still posting as if I was still referring to the raw score after that post was made.

Why is it that everyone else knew I was talking about the standardized score but you thought I was talking about the raw score? Where in my post does it give you a hint that I was referring to the raw score and not the standardized score?

A: SuperTank was questioning if 17 is the real overall (not "applying", "accepted", "enrolled" etc.) test average (it is) and that 16s should be way more likely than 20s (yes). Both true statements.

B: In contradiction ("Not necessarily"), your response was to present a set of numbers (18-22, for which doc correctly pointed out could not exist in the real world), calculate an average (18.4) and make the conclusion " Notice how no one got below 18 (duh! the lowest value in your number set is 18 so how can you get anything below 18???!!)) yet the average is still in the 18 range" (yes, but the majority is still BELOW the average...as in 16 is below a 17).
C. The fallacy of your entire argument was to use a set of numbers completely exclusive of reality. Then you made the wrong conclusion. If your 18.4 (average) is the ADA's "17" (average), then your "18" would really be a "16" (the next whole value below the average), so you essentially proved SuperTank's point. As I said to americanpie, I'm not about nit-picking that you never mentioned "standardized", but your ignorance of reality and incorrect conclusion lead me to believe that you were using "raw score reasoning". If you had a good grasp of standardize scoring by the ADA, you would have stopped at "A" (17 is the average and there are more 16s than 20s). Remember, we were addressing the overall average, not those applying, accepted, enrolled, on SDN etc.

 

[SupahShyGuy]

I don't really buy the ADA statement that 17 is average. I don't think I have ever seen a 16 AA... but shouldn't that be way more likely than a 20 AA? I have seen TONS of 20 AAs... never anything below a 17. Or how about PAT scores? I have heard of a couple of 15's... but shouldn't we see as many below 18 than above?

I would think that those that got into dental school with those scores would be "ashamed" to have gotten in because they tend to balance the entering classes in all dimensions (race, age, background, DAT scores, GPA, etc etc etc). I wouldn't expect a 16-17 AA to talk about their score unless it was an admissions representative.

I would believe that most schools take a few from the lot of those 16-17 AA's.

 

[americanpierg]

A: SuperTank was questioning if 17 is the real overall (not "applying", "accepted", "enrolled" etc.) test average (it is) and that 16s should be way more likely than 20s (yes). Both true statements.

B: In contradiction ("Not necessarily"), your response was to present a set of numbers (18-22, for which doc correctly pointed out could not exist in the real world), calculate an average (18.4) and make the conclusion " Notice how no one got below 18 (duh! the lowest value in your number set is 18 so how can you get anything below 18???!!)) yet the average is still in the 18 range" (yes, but the majority is still BELOW the average...as in 16 is below a 17).
C. The fallacy of your entire argument was to use a set of numbers completely exclusive of reality. Then you made the wrong conclusion. If your 18.4 (average) is the ADA's "17" (average), then your "18" would really be a "16" (the next whole value below the average), so you essentially proved SuperTank's point. As I said to americanpie, I'm not about nit-picking that you never mentioned "standardized", but your ignorance of reality and incorrect conclusion lead me to believe that you were using "raw score reasoning". If you had a good grasp of standardize scoring by the ADA, you would have stopped at "A" (17 is the average and there are more 16s than 20s). Remember, we were addressing the overall average, not those applying, accepted, enrolled, on SDN etc.

lol this guy just doesnt admit it when he is wrong...

UIC was giving a HYPOTHETICAL scenario in which supertank's statement WOULD BE WRONG. Is the scenario logical? YES. is it right? No (unless you're talking about enrolled stats and not overall stats). THAT IS WHY IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL scenario. The DIFFERENCE that you don't understand here is that Supertank used a number rounded to the nearest WHOLE number as his average, while UIC used a number rounded to the TENTHs place as his average, which makes a WORLD of a difference.

Supertank said that there should be more 16s than 20s if the average is 17. The OP gave a hypothetical scenario where this would be incorrect. if the average is 17.4, this does NOT have to mean there are more 16s than 20s, and he showed why in his example (albeit with a different set of numbers) . why r u so ticked off about this.


You focus too much on the numbers and don't seem to have the ability to think above and beyond what is explicitly stated. This seems to be a problem with students who do nothing but study and has lost all ability to survive in the real world. This is why the MCAT reading comprehension is such a great test and should be on the DAT instead of the joke RC we have at the moment.

1. UIC giving example scores of 18 19 20 21 and 22 does not mean its not possible to get a score of 1-17 or 23-30, it just means in his example, no one got these scores. It is tedious and unnecessary to say 0 people got a 1, 0 people got a 2... all the way to how many people got a 30. The number set is 1-30, not 18-22. The number set of 1-30 is IMPLIED. It is implied this his numbers are part of the DAT standardized scale, as that is what this thread is about.

2. Stating that someone got a 18 does not mean their raw score is an 18, it is implied the 18 is already the standardized score. if i go into a thread and said i got an 18, it is implied i got the already standardized score of 18 (for whatever section the thread was about)

3. Supertank said that if the average is a 17, then 16s are more prevalent than 20s. This is correct even with UICs example if you fail to realize how the DAT is graded, which you say you are an expert at. BUT since we are talking about DAT scores, we all know they are represented with a greater degree of certainty. So IF the average is given to the tenths or hundredths place, like the scores we usually see in charts and whatnot, then the HYPOTHETICAL example presented by UIC holds water. A HYPOTHETICAL average presented by ADA of 17.4 does not necessarily mean there are more 16s and below than 20s or whatever and above, as supertank stated, and UIC showed why.

If you simply said like doc tooth said that UIC's example doesn't exist in the real world, then that is fine. But you said the example in of itself is incorrect, which it is not, because he made the wrong conclusion, which he did not.

for someone who tries SOOO hard to sound smart, you are coming off as the total opposite. this is my last post and if through all this you still don't get it, it may be too much work to help u any longer.

 

[doc toothache]

Take out the 0s in my example so that the total enrolled is 38 and the average would still be the same....

What came into question was not your calculations, but rather the absurdity of your example with nice round number of scores ranging neatly from 18-22 and the 37,500 enrollees considering US ds enroll 4500/year.

Yes, of course averages are universally used without an accompanying standard deviation statistic, but that's also why people like you who fail to think end up misinterpreting them. This would just all end if they released the median DAT score too, or if people just took a simple math class...

Some have not been as fortunate in benefiting from "a simple math class" where it would have been clearly established that "averages" are totally distinct animals from "medians" and that without sd humanity is totally lost.

 

[alanan84]

This thread can be summed up in three words... blah blah blah

Seriously who cares?