Do Dental School Admissions look at the 'presitige' of your undergrad university

[hbcupros143]

I want to attend Florida Atlantic University which is not well known like Florida State U or The Univeristy of Florida and I just want to know whether or not dental school admissions looks at the prestige of one's undergraduate school. Would it be okay for me to attend this no name university? I also want to kno whether it is recommended to transfer to a better school after two years of undergrad. Will this transition hurt me later on? I would love to hear the stories of accepted dental students or current dentists that went to just regular, tier II univeristies who are doing well now as well...thanks in advanced! 😕😕😕😕😕😕

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bing12]

here are the arguments you will hear. some will say it does matter where you go, others will say it wont matter at all. The conclusion I and some others believe in is: it matters, but on a very small basis. For example, if you go to a very prestigious school and have a 4.0, versus another student that went to a no name school with a 4.0, then the prestigious school will look better. but , a 3.8 on a noname school versus a 3.3 at a prestigious school, IMO, the 3.8 at a noname school is better. at the end of the day its down to the raw numbers, DAT and gpa. if you are doing well at the school you will attend, and you enjoy the school, then stay there and continue to do well. There are plenty of students that get into dental school coming from random schools that no one has heard of.haha. The way I look at it is, if you come from a great name school, you might have a .2 ( at most) gpa inflation compared to other students( at a not well know school) .

 

[cbizzle7994]

here are the arguments you will hear. some will say it does matter where you go, others will say it wont matter at all. The conclusion I and some others believe in is: it matters, but on a very small basis. For example, if you go to a very prestigious school and have a 4.0, versus another student that went to a no name school with a 4.0, then the prestigious school will look better. but , a 3.8 on a noname school versus a 3.3 at a prestigious school, IMO, the 3.8 at a noname school is better. at the end of the day its down to the raw numbers, DAT and gpa. if you are doing well at the school you will attend, and you enjoy the school, then stay there and continue to do well. There are plenty of students that get into dental school coming from random schools that no one has heard of.haha. The way I look at it is, if you come from a great name school, you might have a .2 ( at most) gpa inflation compared to other students( at a not well know school) .

👍👍

agree completely

 

[Osity]

There's no difference. It does not matter what you you attend for your undergrad. What does matter is what your GPA/DAT scores are, what kind of extracurricular activities you have, and how well you can communicate in an interview. If you do all three of those well, you'll have multiple acceptances.

 

[MechZZ]

In short, just like everybody has said, just as long as you maintain a high GPA and get a good DAT score it does not matter where you go.

This next part very much sounds like "OH HE'S TOSSING AROUND RUMORS" but I've had a Dental school professor(his name is Dr. Schweizer and he was also on Nova's Dental board of Admissions) teach a class in grad school say to the class "Yeah we usually don't care about what school you go to, just get a good GPA... unless you go to some place like M.I.T., then we'll maybe over look a lower GPA."

 

[hbcupros143]

so what undergrad schoools do you guys come from?? Well known places??

 

[camshaft]

Well I already knew how to spell 'presitige' before going to college, so your needs may be different from mine ;-)

I went to Penn for undergrad and loved it because of some amazing opportunities I had that I wouldn't have gotten anywhere else in the country. That said though, in my early years I had some awful grades in some very difficult math and physics classes I took when originally planning on a physics major, and they definitely weren't simply overlooked. I don't regret having taken difficult courses though, only not having known what serious work was before starting them.

 

[Mackchops]

My opinion is that since this question is always asked on these boards and a concensus is never reached that a similar opinion and conclusion may be translated to admissions committees and their members -- it will matter a varying degree to various people. Go where you'll be happiest and I guarantee you'll end up getting higher marks and improving your chances of admission later on.

My only caveat would be if you were considering UF dental. In my (limited) experience, they prefer graduates of their own undergrad program over those from other schools throughout the state.

 

[John Durian]

I agree that GPA and DAT trumps all (ie, the timeless argument of a 3.2 at UCLA vs a 3.8 at CSU Long Beach usually means the CSU Long Beach person will win out in a 1vs1 battle). However, life is not a 1 on 1 battle. You will have lots of 3.8 UC people to battle it out with the 3.8 CSU people and the UC people almost always win out.

I'm using UC (more "prestigious" public university) vs CSU (less "prestigious" public university) as an example as I'm from California. I think this would be similar to comparing the UF system vs the lower tier state schools (not sure what you guys name it).

Another example is during the interviews. At ALL of my interviews, I met plenty of graduates from UCLA, UCBerk, UCD, UCSD, etc. Met only ONE person during my entire interview process (5 schools and I think she was in the Michigan interview) that was from CSU Pomona I believe. Also, every single person I met from the UCSF and UCLA interview dates were from a UC or OOS university.

I know it's all anecdotal evidence, but I think it's a blatant bias toward the more prestigious schools. I do not believe one system is better than another or the students of one school are better than another. BUT when it comes to having a slight advantage, I would go to the better school.

 

[MrWilson]

It seriously does not matter where you go to undergrad, prestige or no prestige. What does matter, is what you make of yourself during those 4+ years. I went to a public/tier 4/"party school" (East Carolina) and I got into my first choice. Go where you think you will enjoy the next 4+ years, and have your numbers high.

I've met with several admission directors, and they all said it doesn't matter. Sure, it looks good to see an application come across the table at an admission committee meeting that has the word "Duke" or "Stanford" stamped on it, and may possibly help in garnering an interview, but what you do in the interview is another thing.

I'll leave you with one more example. A guy that I went to undergrad with (ECU), graduated with a 4.0 gpa and a 24 DAT was accepted to Harvard and several other fine dental schools, but ended up going to UNC.
So yes, it can be done even if you go to a non-prestigous school. Just make the most of your opportunites and keep your grades high.

 

[notin]

it of course matters at least somewhat. i mean just think yourself, if you were comparing a harvard grad with a 3.3 and an eastern rapid city A&M grad with a 3.3, who would you pick... now just extend a gpa difference until you wouldn't pick the harvard grad anymore. I think there's gotta be at minimum a potential for a .2-.3 bias, maybe more maybe less, depending.

 

[John Durian]

Well this question remains invariably unanswerable since all applicants are different. What MrWilson says is true. If you go to any university and get 3.8+ GPA, 23+ DAT, tons of clinical/research experience then most schools will be happy to hand you an interview. What you do there is what will ultimately differentiate you from the rest of the pack.

However, the iffy part comes when you compare two applicants with similar stats: "prestigious" brand-name university vs no-name university. And the admissions people will ALWAYS say they have no bias, but in reality that's just not true. Sometimes schools will post what institutions their students come from and a vast majority come from the more "prestigious" schools. It's not impossible to get in coming from a less prestigious school, but it sure makes it harder.

Here is my example from UCD's School of Vet (accepted/applied): UC system 80/291 = 27.5% vs CSU 13/146 = 8.90%. Even if you were to argue that the majority of the UC students came from UCD itself, you can eliminate them from the equation and still see a bias toward the more prestigious UCs: 35/133 = 26.3% vs CSU 8.90%

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/studentprograms/class_2014/pdfs/applicationstatistics.pdf

It seriously does not matter where you go to undergrad, prestige or no prestige. What does matter, is what you make of yourself during those 4+ years. I went to a public/tier 4/"party school" (East Carolina) and I got into my first choice. Go where you think you will enjoy the next 4+ years, and have your numbers high.

I've met with several admission directors, and they all said it doesn't matter. Sure, it looks good to see an application come across the table at an admission committee meeting that has the word "Duke" or "Stanford" stamped on it, and may possibly help in garnering an interview, but what you do in the interview is another thing.

I'll leave you with one more example. A guy that I went to undergrad with (ECU), graduated with a 4.0 gpa and a 24 DAT was accepted to Harvard and several other fine dental schools, but ended up going to UNC.
So yes, it can be done even if you go to a non-prestigous school. Just make the most of your opportunites and keep your grades high.

 

[John Durian]

Here's another example. I just google searched "dental school class statistics" and Tuft's came up: http://dental.tufts.edu/1186496760237/TUSDM-Page-dental2w_1186496760283.html

Feeder Schools: Institutions with 3 or more individuals matriculating at Tufts

Tufts University
University of Florida
Brigham Young University
University of California-Irvine
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of California - San Diego
University of Georgia
University of New Hampshire
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Boston University
College of the Holy Cross
George Washington University
Rutgers University - New Brunswick
University of California - Los Angeles
University of California - Riverside

Don't see many from the less prestigious CSU system getting in. Again, I'm not saying they are bad schools because I think they offer a great education at a great price. But when it comes to professional school acceptance rates... the pure numbers don't lie.

 

[Green85]

I think bing12 pretty much summarized what most people think concerning this topic...it may matter, but I think you should ultimately go where you think is best for you. In my situation, I graduated from UTexas with a professional healthcare undergraduate degree, but I did ALL (yes ALL) of my prerequisites at a community college post-bacc, took my DAT 2 times (made average), applied last day of September---------ultimately got 5 interview offers and 2 acceptances (so far! 🙂 )----all in my first application cycle. School "prestige" may matter, but what builds your application ultimately decides your fate!

 

[armorshell]

Here is my example from UCD's School of Vet (accepted/applied): UC system 80/291 = 27.5% vs CSU 13/146 = 8.90%. Even if you were to argue that the majority of the UC students came from UCD itself, you can eliminate them from the equation and still see a bias toward the more prestigious UCs: 35/133 = 26.3% vs CSU 8.90%

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/studentprograms/class_2014/pdfs/applicationstatistics.pdf

Not controlled for equivalent statistics. How do you know that students from the CSU schools had the same average statistics as the UC students? If the CSU students had lower GPAs and lower test scores, this correlation doesn't really tell you anything about the effect of the school.

 

[armorshell]

Here's another example. I just google searched "dental school class statistics" and Tuft's came up: http://dental.tufts.edu/1186496760237/TUSDM-Page-dental2w_1186496760283.html

Feeder Schools: Institutions with 3 or more individuals matriculating at Tufts

Tufts University
University of Florida
Brigham Young University
University of California-Irvine
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of California - San Diego
University of Georgia
University of New Hampshire
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Boston University
College of the Holy Cross
George Washington University
Rutgers University - New Brunswick
University of California - Los Angeles
University of California - Riverside

Don't see many from the less prestigious CSU system getting in. Again, I'm not saying they are bad schools because I think they offer a great education at a great price. But when it comes to professional school acceptance rates... the pure numbers don't lie.

Uncontrolled for number of applicants. How many applied from CSU vs. UC? What were their statistics? Pure numbers don't lie, but you don't have anything approaching "pure numbers." You have a wildly uncontrolled sampling that can't even rightly be called a correlation.

 

[John Durian]

Not controlled for equivalent statistics. How do you know that students from the CSU schools had the same average statistics as the UC students? If the CSU students had lower GPAs and lower test scores, this correlation doesn't really tell you anything about the effect of the school.

Uncontrolled for number of applicants. How many applied from CSU vs. UC? What were their statistics? Pure numbers don't lie, but you don't have anything approaching "pure numbers." You have a wildly uncontrolled sampling that can't even rightly be called a correlation.

Eh, this is why it remains unanswerable in reality. Of course you can't say for sure that there is a correlation unless you have a breakdown of every individual's GPA and test scores for that cycle, but we will never have access to that information (unless you are on the adcom).

But as an informed predent, I think most of us apply knowing the general statistics of the matriculating class of the previous years. Because of this, I also believe the ones who do apply will have statistics not far from the mean GPA/DAT of last year's cycle. Of course, this is just my opinion. I see a trend; you may not. I just presented an argument and evidence for my side. We can argue all day and night, but no one is going to change their mind.

To the OP, it's really up to you. If you are an exceptional being than you will succeed and get in regardless of where you go. I would go to the place that will 1) minimize debt, 2) has great weather, 3) give you great research/extracurricular opportunities, and 4) has a better reputation. And I rank it in that order.

 

[armorshell]

Eh, this is why it remains unanswerable in reality. Of course you can't say for sure that there is a correlation unless you have a breakdown of every individual's GPA and test scores for that cycle, but we will never have access to that information (unless you are on the adcom).

This is my point. You presented this argument, and bravo to it. An examination of the available data agrees with your statement.

But as an informed predent, I think most of us apply knowing the general statistics of the matriculating class of the previous years. Because of this, I also believe the ones who do apply will have statistics not far from the mean GPA/DAT of last year's cycle. Of course, this is just my opinion. I see a trend; you may not. I just presented an argument and evidence for my side. We can argue all day and night, but no one is going to change their mind.

But wait, now you present an argument (and data) representing a different opinion. My objective is not to change your mind since through some feat of cognitive dissonance, you appear to hold two opinions at once. My objective is to point out the flaws in the data you presented, and thus the flaws in your argument. You presented data and explained is as a definitive link ("Pure numbers don't lie?"), and that couldn't be further from the truth.

My only goal was to lead people to your original conclusion: We don't know enough to say almost anything with certainty.

 

[armorshell]

But as an informed predent, I think most of us apply knowing the general statistics of the matriculating class of the previous years. Because of this, I also believe the ones who do apply will have statistics not far from the mean GPA/DAT of last year's cycle. Of course, this is just my opinion. I see a trend; you may not. I just presented an argument and evidence for my side. We can argue all day and night, but no one is going to change their mind.

So I don't understand exactly what you're trying to say here. Your assumption is that, given these data, all students matriculating to a professional school, have the mean entrance statistics regardless of their school of origin? Is that correct?

 

[glo1984]

this is my point. You presented this argument, and bravo to it. An examination of the available data agrees with your statement.



But wait, now you present an argument (and data) representing a different opinion. My objective is not to change your mind since through some feat of cognitive dissonance, you appear to hold two opinions at once. My objective is to point out the flaws in the data you presented, and thus the flaws in your argument. You presented data and explained is as a definitive link ("pure numbers don't lie?"), and that couldn't be further from the truth.

My only goal was to lead people to your original conclusion: We don't know enough to say almost anything with certainty.

+1

 

[John Durian]

I (John Durian) think there is a definite trend; no where do I state that what I say is fact. It's hard to hold an argument online as what I write and mean may be vastly different from what you read and interpret. I meant to say that 1) you are correct in that we,as in everyone (including myself), will never really know for sure and 2) I (John Durian) still believe (despite the fact that we will never know for sure) that there is a trend (so no, there is no conflict). Sorry for the bold and italics. It's not meant to be a condescending reply towards the vitriol I may or may not sense in your quips. I am merely trying to convey what I am sincerely saying without misinterpretation this time.

And no I did not imply (or at least mean to imply) that everyone who matriculates has the mean entrance statistics. I meant to say the people who apply tend to know what the matriculating class stats are and apply to "obtainable" schools accordingly. Thus, I believe that there will not be a significant difference between the GPA/DAT between UC and CSU applicants. Of course, there will always be individuals who will be outliers in both the UC and CSU system. However, the majority of the folks who apply will end up falling within one standard deviation of the mean.

Finally, there will always be uncontrollable factors including research experience, hours of dental observations, personal statements, interviewing skills, etc that will influence your admission into dental school. I (John Durian) believe and this is my (John Durian) opinion that you will be conferred a SLIGHT (but you will never know if this is true or not) advantage by going to a more prestigious institution. To each his own.

 

[UltimateHombre]

My objective is to point out the flaws in the data you presented, and thus the flaws in your argument. You presented data and explained is as a definitive link ("Pure numbers don't lie?"), and that couldn't be further from the truth.

My only goal was to lead people to your original conclusion: We don't know enough to say almost anything with certainty.

Thank you for your control Armorshell, in keeping the rest of the SDN readers informed of what actually constitutes real data.

I think that everyone should read "How to lie with statistics". Great book that will make you a better academic and educated person in society.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728

It's cheap and easy to read.

 

[John Durian]

Thank you for your control Armorshell, in keeping the rest of the SDN readers informed of what actually constitutes real data.

I think that everyone should read "How to lie with statistics". Great book that will make you a better academic and educated person in society.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728

It's cheap and easy to read.

😉

 

[armorshell]

I (John Durian) think there is a definite trend; no where do I state that what I say is fact. It's hard to hold an argument online as what I write and mean may be vastly different from what you read and interpret. I meant to say that 1) you are correct in that we,as in everyone (including myself), will never really know for sure and 2) I (John Durian) still believe (despite the fact that we will never know for sure) that there is a trend (so no, there is no conflict). Sorry for the bold and italics. It's not meant to be a condescending reply towards the vitriol I may or may not sense in your quips. I am merely trying to convey what I am sincerely saying without misinterpretation this time.

And no I did not imply (or at least mean to imply) that everyone who matriculates has the mean entrance statistics. I meant to say the people who apply tend to know what the matriculating class stats are and apply to "obtainable" schools accordingly. Thus, I believe that there will not be a significant difference between the GPA/DAT between UC and CSU applicants. Of course, there will always be individuals who will be outliers in both the UC and CSU system. However, the majority of the folks who apply will end up falling within one standard deviation of the mean.

Finally, there will always be uncontrollable factors including research experience, hours of dental observations, personal statements, interviewing skills, etc that will influence your admission into dental school. I (John Durian) believe and this is my (John Durian) opinion that you will be conferred a SLIGHT (but you will never know if this is true or not) advantage by going to a more prestigious institution. To each his own.

No vitriol intended, just trying to get down to the brass tacks.

As far as your assumptions, I'd tend to disagree. CSU and UC have wildly different student bodies as reflected by entrance statistics, with the UC system having significantly higher GPA and SAT scores on average. It's pretty well established in the education literature that previous scholastic performance is a predictor for future academic success, so you'd expect higher achievement from the UC system on standardized testing.

I don't know how reasonable it is in your example to assume self-selection in the applicant pool considering you're talking about primarily California residents (UC vs. CSU) applying to a California state veterinary school.

Now, if you wanted to make a case, maybe you'd want to compare schools with roughly equivalent entrance statistics, say CPSLO and UCR/UCSC. The UC schools are still overrepresented even controlling for pre-existing academic factors. Then you might have something, but who knows. Is there statistical significance? Not sure.

 

[hbcupros143]

It seriously does not matter where you go to undergrad, prestige or no prestige. What does matter, is what you make of yourself during those 4+ years. I went to a public/tier 4/"party school" (East Carolina) and I got into my first choice. Go where you think you will enjoy the next 4+ years, and have your numbers high.

I've met with several admission directors, and they all said it doesn't matter. Sure, it looks good to see an application come across the table at an admission committee meeting that has the word "Duke" or "Stanford" stamped on it, and may possibly help in garnering an interview, but what you do in the interview is another thing.

I'll leave you with one more example. A guy that I went to undergrad with (ECU), graduated with a 4.0 gpa and a 24 DAT was accepted to Harvard and several other fine dental schools, but ended up going to UNC.
So yes, it can be done even if you go to a non-prestigous school. Just make the most of your opportunites and keep your grades high.

Thank you so much for including your personal experience. Great answer! 👍👍👍

 

[chimm]

Would it be right to advise a younger sibling to attend CSUs rather than UCs, in light of graduate school as a goal? I just feel that undergrad would be easier at CSUs and thus a higher GPA. I have a tendency to believe that DAT scores depend more so on the study habits of the person and not necessarily the school that they went to. Level of competition would be higher as well at the UCs just because of overall demographic of the admitted students. If graduate schools don't strongly discriminate based upon undergrad schools, would this be advisable?

Anybody want to set me straight on this? Thanks!

 

[amcmahon]

I think at a 'prestigious school' people are more competitive which means you're more challenged, so you work harder, so you learn more, and then so you end up doing better on the DAT.

Thus, if you are challenged at your liberal arts school and you study hard for the DAT you're good.

 

[armorshell]

I think at a 'prestigious school' people are more competitive which means you're more challenged, so you work harder, so you learn more, and then so you end up doing better on the DAT.

At least one avenue of emerging research disagrees with your presumption. For starters:

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/schoolchoicelottery.pdf
http://international.ucla.edu/media/files/w7322.pdf

 

[sfoksn]

Would it be right to advise a younger sibling to attend CSUs rather than UCs, in light of graduate school as a goal? I just feel that undergrad would be easier at CSUs and thus a higher GPA. I have a tendency to believe that DAT scores depend more so on the study habits of the person and not necessarily the school that they went to. Level of competition would be higher as well at the UCs just because of overall demographic of the admitted students. If graduate schools don't strongly discriminate based upon undergrad schools, would this be advisable?

Anybody want to set me straight on this? Thanks!

I would agree with that statement, but if my younger sister could repick her college, I would tell her to go to an ivy league or stanford over UCs.

The fact is, at UCs, although people study hard and develop good study habits, it is hard to get good grades.

I have few friends who are attending Penn, Yale, Princeton, and LOTS of friends in Stanford (because I am from NorCal), they apparently let their students re-take their exams.

They also study hard, though. Their libraries are always so full whenever I visit them. So my point is that those "better" private institutions help you develop better study habits by having extremely competitive classmates, but also let you develop good GPA. UC's lack the latter aspect.

 

[John Durian]

No vitriol intended, just trying to get down to the brass tacks.

As far as your assumptions, I'd tend to disagree. CSU and UC have wildly different student bodies as reflected by entrance statistics, with the UC system having significantly higher GPA and SAT scores on average. It's pretty well established in the education literature that previous scholastic performance is a predictor for future academic success, so you'd expect higher achievement from the UC system on standardized testing.

I don't know how reasonable it is in your example to assume self-selection in the applicant pool considering you're talking about primarily California residents (UC vs. CSU) applying to a California state veterinary school.

Now, if you wanted to make a case, maybe you'd want to compare schools with roughly equivalent entrance statistics, say CPSLO and UCR/UCSC. The UC schools are still overrepresented even controlling for pre-existing academic factors. Then you might have something, but who knows. Is there statistical significance? Not sure.

👍 because you're very logical, straight forward, and honest 🙂

Just wished we can get a hold of those incoming class stats of every person to squash this. It would be really interesting to see 🙄

 

[John Durian]

I would agree with that statement, but if my younger sister could repick her college, I would tell her to go to an ivy league or stanford over UCs.

The fact is, at UCs, although people study hard and develop good study habits, it is hard to get good grades.

That's gonna be a lot of debt without scholarships. Coming from a poor background, I never even thought about let alone consider a place like the ivies or stanford.

The UC thing is true; it's pretty darn difficult and cut-throat. You'll have GIGANTIC (300-400 people) intro classes, labs are taught by TAs, tons of competition by pre-meds/dents/pharms/opts/vets, and little to no attention from faculty. It's one big pain tbh.

But you get what you pay for...

 

[Simiam]

It's about the individual not the University. It comes down to raw GPA and DAT.

Brigham Young University will be a top feeder school at every Dental School in the country. Of course, this could have much more to do with the amount of applicants coming from BYU...

 

[dentalWorks]

I want to attend Florida Atlantic University which is not well known like Florida State U or The Univeristy of Florida and I just want to know whether or not dental school admissions looks at the prestige of one's undergraduate school. Would it be okay for me to attend this no name university? I also want to kno whether it is recommended to transfer to a better school after two years of undergrad. Will this transition hurt me later on? I would love to hear the stories of accepted dental students or current dentists that went to just regular, tier II univeristies who are doing well now as well...thanks in advanced! 😕😕😕😕😕😕

Think about it like this... IF there truely was a preference of universities attended, then most of us pre-dents who took community college credits would be.... S.O.L cause a 4-year university almost always looks better (on paper) than a community college.

But thats not true, hundereds (if not thousands) of applicants have done CC credits and have gotten interviews and acceptances.

Presitige = 100% MYTH

 

[cbizzle7994]

Think about it like this... IF there truely was a preference of universities attended, then most of us pre-dents who took community college credits would be.... S.O.L cause a 4-year university almost always looks better (on paper) than a community college.

But thats not true, hundereds (if not thousands) of applicants have done CC credits and have gotten interviews and acceptances.

Presitige = 100% MYTH

At some of my interviews, the interviewer would comment on how much he loves my university and how he thinks it's a great science program. My stats aren't stellar in comparison to others and I have no research experience with few ECs. I received 6 interviews, attended 4, and got accepted everywhere I interviewed. I'm confident that where I went to school played a part in that.

 

[Osity]

At some of my interviews, the interviewer would comment on how much he loves my university and how he thinks it's a great science program. My stats aren't stellar in comparison to others and I have no research experience with few ECs. I received 6 interviews, attended 4, and got accepted everywhere I interviewed. I'm confident that where I went to school played a part in that.

You have a 3.4 and a 21 DAT. I'm confident that played a part in your acceptances.

 

[lmaozedong1]

At some of my interviews, the interviewer would comment on how much he loves my university and how he thinks it's a great science program. My stats aren't stellar in comparison to others and I have no research experience with few ECs. I received 6 interviews, attended 4, and got accepted everywhere I interviewed. I'm confident that where I went to school played a part in that.

McGill? Harvard >>>>McGill

...totally just fooling around by the way.

 

[NAVY DDS 2010]

I went to a hole in the wall college in Idaho and received letters of acceptance to every school I applied to. You do not have to go to a well known, well thought of school to get into most any dental school you desire. Get good grades and do well on the DAT. Then, your dream will most likely come true.

 

[notin]

Just wished we can get a hold of those incoming class stats of every person to squash this. It would be really interesting to see 🙄

you could determine a correlation using pre-dents.

 

[armorshell]

you could determine a correlation using pre-dents.

Pre-dents is an awesome tool, but not for data mining averages. Selection bias?

 

[321931]

Here is food for thought: Many people that attend "prestigious/more recognized" universities tend to be "achievers" for starters. These ambitious achievers tend to have higher achieving goals. Therefore, you tend to see a skew of "prestigious" universities becoming feeder schools for dental,medical, or T14 programs.

Either way, I believe that a high GPA/DAT from any school is the means to admission. Prestigious schools can have an influence but only to a certain point. I.E. Two students with similar grades, but one comes from "MIT." However, I firmly believe a 3.8 22 DAT state college trumps a 3.2 22 Harvard Grad.

 

[Maygyver]

I think the main point to answer the OP is that you can get into dental school from any undergraduate institution if you put in the work. Go where you will be happy and proud.

 

[schen140]

well certain d-schools do take into account the competitiveness of your university, we just don't know to what extent

my source = admissions officer from USC or UCSF, i can't remember which. he mentioned that universities are ranked in competitiveness from 1-7 (7 being the most competitive) to account for gpa disparities. so if you go to a cut-throat university (7) and end up with a 3.4 gpa, you'd be more competitive in that aspect than someone with a 3.4 from a private school with grade inflation (let's say a 5)

 

[amcmahon]

I would agree with that statement, but if my younger sister could repick her college, I would tell her to go to an ivy league or stanford over UCs.

The fact is, at UCs, although people study hard and develop good study habits, it is hard to get good grades.

I have few friends who are attending Penn, Yale, Princeton, and LOTS of friends in Stanford (because I am from NorCal), they apparently let their students re-take their exams.

They also study hard, though. Their libraries are always so full whenever I visit them. So my point is that those "better" private institutions help you develop better study habits by having extremely competitive classmates, but also let you develop good GPA. UC's lack the latter aspect.

Yeah thats why employers usually require a higher GPA from Stanford grads than UCs because they are aware of the grade inflation. I bet its the same for dental school.

 

[Lane138]

Here is food for thought: Many people that attend "prestigious/more recognized" universities tend to be "achievers" for starters. These ambitious achievers tend to have higher achieving goals. Therefore, you tend to see a skew of "prestigious" universities becoming feeder schools for dental,medical, or T14 programs.

Either way, I believe that a high GPA/DAT from any school is the means to admission. Prestigious schools can have an influence but only to a certain point. I.E. Two students with similar grades, but one comes from "MIT." However, I firmly believe a 3.8 22 DAT state college trumps a 3.2 22 Harvard Grad.

This is a great point, but I think the predominant worry is that admission officers might buy into that theory and view an average applicant from Harvard or Yale as intrinsically more competitive and high-achieving than somebody else from a no-name school. This phenomenon definitely exists in the business/recruiting world. http://www.cnbc.com/id/41354100. Unfair, but true.

 

[321931]

This is a great point, but I think the predominant worry is that admission officers might buy into that theory and view an average applicant from Harvard or Yale as intrinsically more competitive and high-achieving than somebody else from a no-name school. This phenomenon definitely exists in the business/recruiting world. http://www.cnbc.com/id/41354100. Unfair, but true.

I also agree with your points. In order to get into top business schools/T14 Law Schools, I've "heard" that prestige plays a very large role. Lets face it, if you don't make it to T14/top business schools...you might as well reapply. Tons and tons of applicants want these spots, because in the end, it WILL make a difference in getting a 6 figure income or no income. (I.E. Harvard Business School had 9000 Apps). With such fierce competition in that area, you know prestige will play a factor.

Personally, I believe that dental school isn't at that "stage" like T14/Business schools are at now. Why? Because there are no "rankings" per say for dental school, there isn't as much over-saturation like the Law/Business schools and, anyone that goes into any dental school whether its Harvard or a new no-name school will come out as a Dentist and have a job. (With opportunities to specialize). Therefore, it isn't as "cutthroat", and there isn't as much applicants like the top law/business schools where prestige will PLAY a factor in admission. Anyone with a good GPA/EC/DAT/Story from any school (no-name to Ivy) can still make it to some great institutions.

 

[hbcupros143]

At some of my interviews, the interviewer would comment on how much he loves my university and how he thinks it's a great science program. My stats aren't stellar in comparison to others and I have no research experience with few ECs. I received 6 interviews, attended 4, and got accepted everywhere I interviewed. I'm confident that where I went to school played a part in that.

Where did you go to school??

 

[somedayover]

I don't think dental schools care about prestige of applicants' undergrad, if so then a little.

 

[somedayover]

McGill? Harvard >>>>McGill

...totally just fooling around by the way.

What a looser...

where did you graduate then?

McGill is a good school buddy.

 

[lmaozedong1]

What a looser...

where did you graduate then?

McGill is a good school buddy.

Read my whole post, champ.

I'm assuming you're Canadian?