gpa adjusting factors for different tiers of undergrad programs

[yahoogoogle]

---

Members don't see this ad.

i know dat is used as an univeral equalizer for the admission process but some schools weigh GPAs based upon reputation or difficulty of applicants' undergrad programs. for example, pitt adds 10-20 percent to those applicants from selective undergraduate programs, which means that a MIT engineering major with 3.0, 23AA gets higher priority than a state school graduate with 3.5, 23AA. anyone has this info with other schools?

 

[pmantz]

i know dat is used as an univeral equalizer for the admission process but some schools weigh GPAs based upon reputation or difficulty of applicants' undergrad programs. for example, pitt adds 10-20 percent to those applicants from selective undergraduate programs, which means that a MIT engineering major with 3.0, 23AA gets higher priority than a state school graduate with 3.5, 23AA. anyone has this info with other schools?

I don't know about that if both applicants got 23's wouldn't they be kind of the same. I am going to go out on a limb and say it doesn't matter where you go to school its who you are and what you have done. I attended a satellite state school and had the pleasure of taking class with/drinking beer and playing golf with someone who won a Rhodes scholarship in biomedical science. If someone who went to some state school got a 23 and a MIT graduate got the same score are is the MIT studentautomatically better. I am not a hater just a firm believer in the man/women not the institution.

 

[dantheman2007]

Graduate programs know which schools (undergrad) offer, for example challenging science courses and those where an A is easily attainable.
That's why I didn't take any courses at a community college (at the behest of ad comm officials and advisors)
best,
dan

 

[Megatron77]

i know dat is used as an univeral equalizer for the admission process but some schools weigh GPAs based upon reputation or difficulty of applicants' undergrad programs. for example, pitt adds 10-20 percent to those applicants from selective undergraduate programs, which means that a MIT engineering major with 3.0, 23AA gets higher priority than a state school graduate with 3.5, 23AA. anyone has this info with other schools?

How do you know that Pitt gives preference to the more selective undergrad programs? I really think that it doesn't matter what undergrad you attend as long as you perform well and score high on the DAT. It would be natural to assume that a student who attends MIT would have a higher DAT score than a student who went to a state school. But if both students have the same DAT score then what message does that send? I know it's difficult to correlate DAT scores with the strength of an undergrad program, but something has to give. Either way, dental schools look at the complete picture.

 

[dat_student]

i know dat is used as an univeral equalizer for the admission process but some schools weigh GPAs based upon reputation or difficulty of applicants' undergrad programs. for example, pitt adds 10-20 percent to those applicants from selective undergraduate programs, which means that a MIT engineering major with 3.0, 23AA gets higher priority than a state school graduate with 3.5, 23AA. anyone has this info with other schools?

Believe it or not, here at UCLA I don't see a relationship between the reputation/difficulty of an undergrad program and success in dental school.....

 

[uclawill]

Actually Dental schools usually DO NOT distinguish much between 4 year universities. While there are alot of schools that might distinguish between say Cal State Fullerton and Harvard, it actually is all about IF it actually is a 4 year institution, and then what your GPA is.

Remember, that is what the DAT is for, its a standardized test for situations like this.

In your case, both the MIT and state school student would have a good chance to make it into D school. Although I have to say, I would rather be the 3.5 student.

 

[Shunwei]

I don't know about that if both applicants got 23's wouldn't they be kind of the same. I am going to go out on a limb and say it doesn't matter where you go to school its who you are and what you have done. I attended a satellite state school and had the pleasure of taking class with/drinking beer and playing golf with someone who won a Rhodes scholarship in biomedical science. If someone who went to some state school got a 23 and a MIT graduate got the same score are is the MIT studentautomatically better. I am not a hater just a firm believer in the man/women not the institution.

I respectfully, completely disagree. I would place much greater weight and favor on those who had the courage and tenacity to undergo a rigorous, demanding curriculum than those who opt for an easier way through college. If numbers are all that mattered, why wouldn't the DS's fill up with community college folks with 4.0 or more GPA? The very experience of being in the grind and competing with folks who are highly competitive and competent is an experience that should not be overlooked.

 

[Ething]

Ok guys, check this out. This was posted when a similar topic was going around SDN. I don't know where it came from but it is a list of all schools and it gives them a ranking based on how difficult it is to get an A (I think). It ranks schools from 1 through 5, 1 being the hardest and 5 being the easiest. Hope this helps!

http://www.academicmanagement.com/a...s/Complete List of Schools (with Ranking).pdf

 

[pmantz]

I respectfully, completely disagree. I would place much greater weight and favor on those who had the courage and tenacity to undergo a rigorous, demanding curriculum than those who opt for an easier way through college. If numbers are all that mattered, why wouldn't the DS's fill up with community college folks with 4.0 or more GPA? The very experience of being in the grind and competing with folks who are highly competitive and competent is an experience that should not be overlooked.

People attending a top tier school have more courage and tenacity because?????? So going to a top tiered private institution means someone is tenacious or just privileged.

You obviously didn't read a word, I posted.... I wasn't talking about CC. Your argument would have some validity if you neglect the fact we all take a DAT. Which allows for the comparison of candidates from different institutions. At my satellite state school we had a lot of non-traditional preprofessional students. People who had a lot of courage and tenacity to decide to go to school after starting a family. I can say from experience its pretty rigorous to raise a family while preparing for dental school. It is not that important where you go , as long as you are a hardworking intelligent and goal-orientated person you can get and deserve to go to any graduate school.

 

[wildcat03]

I was told the same thing about Pitt. I also talked to UNC and they said they definitly see a correlation between performance in dental school and undergrad institution. They also said they see a correlation between undergrad institution and DAT performance. There are a million exceptions, but the average GPA and DAT from someone accepted from my school is lower and higher respectively than the average. With that being said, having under a 3.0 or 18 from any school really wont get you in most places.

 

[Shunwei]

People attending a top tier school have more courage and tenacity because?????? So going to a top tiered private institution means someone is tenacious or just privileged.

You obviously didn't read a word, I posted.... I wasn't talking about CC. Your argument would have some validity if you neglect the fact we all take a DAT. Which allows for the comparison of candidates from different institutions. At my satellite state school we had a lot of non-traditional preprofessional students. People who had a lot of courage and tenacity to decide to go to school after starting a family. I can say from experience its pretty rigorous to raise a family while preparing for dental school. It is not that important where you go , as long as you are a hardworking intelligent and goal-orientated person you can get and deserve to go to any graduate school.

The DAT is only a test. Sure, it is standardized, but your argument is flawed because you are assuming that everyone will perform up to ability on a standardized exam. I am sure that you know quite a few people around you that are smart but are not good "test-takers." If the DAT were the end all-be all of all gauges why not just have that as the sole measure and abolish GPA from consideration?

You also neglect a very important consideration. Taking the DAT and doing well on it is only a 4.5 hour endeavor, comparatively less grinding than the demands of a full, four-year curriculum in a good university. Some folks may be good test takers, but ask them to do consistently well across a breadth of classes is a totally different story.

It DOES take a lot of tenacity and courage to go through a demanding, tough academic curriculum. Remember that Dental School is not an easy experience--you have people that are the selected cream of the universities competing with you. Having this kind of experience in college will better acclimate you to the tough and challenging atmosphere. While I certainly admire folks that show tenacity in other aspects of life, we are discussing academic capabilities here, so let's not get carried away.

When I was an undergrad and a grad at Rice and Berkeley, respectively, I served on the admissions committee as a student representative. Without exception, whenever we sit down and review an applicant's file, we always pay particular attention to the institution/school where that student was from, because that gives us a idea of just how valid his/her grades are. Why else do you think the DS ADCOMs recommend no more than ~40-60 hours in a CC? If the numerical GPAs were all that mattered, then why go to a challenging pressure-cooker like Rice when you can get a 4.0 with a fraction of effort at a JC or CC?

 

[Megatron77]

The DAT is only a test. Sure, it is standardized, but your argument is flawed because you are assuming that everyone will perform up to ability on a standardized exam. I am sure that you know quite a few people around you that are smart but are not good "test-takers." If the DAT were the end all-be all of all gauges why not just have that as the sole measure and abolish GPA from consideration?

You also neglect a very important consideration. Taking the DAT and doing well on it is only a 4.5 hour endeavor, comparatively less grinding than the demands of a full, four-year curriculum in a good university. Some folks may be good test takers, but ask them to do consistently well across a breadth of classes is a totally different story.

It DOES take a lot of tenacity and courage to go through a demanding, tough academic curriculum. Remember that Dental School is not an easy experience--you have people that are the selected cream of the universities competing with you. Having this kind of experience in college will better acclimate you to the tough and challenging atmosphere. While I certainly admire folks that show tenacity in other aspects of life, we are discussing academic capabilities here, so let's not get carried away.

When I was an undergrad and a grad at Rice and Berkeley, respectively, I served on the admissions committee as a student representative. Without exception, whenever we sit down and review an applicant's file, we always pay particular attention to the institution/school where that student was from, because that gives us a idea of just how valid his/her grades are. Why else do you think the DS ADCOMs recommend no more than ~40-60 hours in a CC? If the numerical GPAs were all that mattered, then why go to a challenging pressure-cooker like Rice when you can get a 4.0 with a fraction of effort at a JC or CC?

How do you know for sure if a certain program is more demanding than another program? I read an article in Newsweek saying that there was a study that indicated significant grade inflation at some of the more prestigious schools like Harvard. Personally, I transferred from a junior college to a major university and found that some of the classes at the CC were much more rigorous. And just because candidate A went to UCLA while candidate B went to a state school, is candidate A automatically much more qualified? Either way, to earn a solid GPA from any undergrad takes hard work and motivation. Just b/c you go to a CC doesn't mean you can expect "A" grades to be handed to you on a silver plater. Saying that some people are not good at standardized tests is a weak argument. As an undergrad student, we are subjected to tests everyday. Everyone takes the same DAT and everyone has an equal opportunity to perform well depending on how motivated you are. Standardized or not, I believe that if you want it bad enough, then you will do whatever it takes and take full accountability for your performance. Anyone pursuing a path in dentistry should be applauded because it takes hard work no matter which undergrad you attend. Fortunately, dental schools look at the whole picture when selecting candidates for admission. Bottom line is that if you earnestly want to be a dentist and work hard for it, then you will find a way.

 

[BenignDMD]

And just because candidate A went to UCLA while candidate B went to a state school

Isn't UCLA a state school?😎

 

[Megatron77]

Isn't UCLA a state school?😎

Yes it is. I was referring to the UC system vs. the Cal state system in CA. Sorry for the confusion. But I think you understand my gist.

 

[Shunwei]

How do you know for sure if a certain program is more demanding than another program? I read an article in Newsweek saying that there was a study that indicated significant grade inflation at some of the more prestigious schools like Harvard. Personally, I transferred from a junior college to a major university and found that some of the classes at the CC were much more rigorous. And just because candidate A went to UCLA while candidate B went to a state school, is candidate A automatically much more qualified? Either way, to earn a solid GPA from any undergrad takes hard work and motivation. Just b/c you go to a CC doesn't mean you can expect "A" grades to be handed to you on a silver plater. Saying that some people are not good at standardized tests is a weak argument. As an undergrad student, we are subjected to tests everyday. Everyone takes the same DAT and everyone has an equal opportunity to perform well depending on how motivated you are. Standardized or not, I believe that if you want it bad enough, then you will do whatever it takes and take full accountability for your performance. Anyone pursuing a path in dentistry should be applauded because it takes hard work no matter which undergrad you attend. Fortunately, dental schools look at the whole picture when selecting candidates for admission. Bottom line is that if you earnestly want to be a dentist and work hard for it, then you will find a way.

You know which program is more demanding based on reputation within the scholastic community and also published information. It is well known that JC/CC are in general much more lenient in the demands of their classes and their quality of their students. I don't say this to offend anybody in particular but this is just the truth. You are right in that you still have to work to get that "A," but you have to realize that there are different shades of "work"; for JC/CC, it is just easier because the quality of your peers is just not as high as places as a top 25 university. When your peers have strong intelligence, motivation, and a track record of success, it is not hard for us to understand that the competition will necessarily get tougher, especially in classes graded on a curve.

And back to the DAT. While I agree that it is an important indicator for DS ADCOMs, I also mentioned above that not everyone performs up to par on standardized tests. Even if you are personally good at it, I am sure you know people out there that are smart, know their material, but for one reason or another just cannot reflect that ability on standardized exams. This is why a significant portion of the DS's rely on GPA more heavily, such as Penn.

 

[pmantz]

I agree with you 100% about a 4.0 at a JC or a CC should not hold a candle to a lower GPA at a reputable acedemic institutute. I also agree with your point about acedemic rigor compared to one standardized test. My original point was not all the greatest and brightest minds wind up a tier 1 or 2 tier school. I used my friend as an example, a individual who made the best of what was around him. He attended a tier 5 school and was one of a select few(4) with the privilege to study at Cambridge which he turned down to attend Berkley. I and other late bloomers or non-traditionals who financially or because of proximity/logistics (i.e. family) can't get a "premium" education, so they have to take their "inferior" high GPA's from a state school and there "meaningless" high test scores and get into wherever will take them.

You missed my point dude, I wasn't knocking prestigious institutions or trying to invalidate the many positive attributes their education provides. P chem is P chem no matter where you take it, and I have taken classes at a tier 1 school, and found them to be no more difficult (even a bit easier)then my lowly tier 5 satellite state school.

 

[litldime]

I respectfully, completely disagree. I would place much greater weight and favor on those who had the courage and tenacity to undergo a rigorous, demanding curriculum than those who opt for an easier way through college. If numbers are all that mattered, why wouldn't the DS's fill up with community college folks with 4.0 or more GPA? The very experience of being in the grind and competing with folks who are highly competitive and competent is an experience that should not be overlooked.

This statement you make is making a big assumption. I went to a less "prestigious" school because of what?...money...the scholarships didn't add up....so i don't think it really has anything to do with courage. etc...what my family could afford played a major role in it
everyone has different income brackets and that does play a huge role on where one attends undergrad.... but ofcourse, there are some who are trying to find an easy way out...
so with your argument should ppl who cant afford ivy education not attend d-school?
obviously since there are different circumstances that contribute to one getting an edcation, the dat and other factors are considered...similary, dental school isn't filled with all ivys... but a mix
-ld

 

[pmantz]

Bottom line is that if you earnestly want to be a dentist and work hard for it, then you will find a way.

I like that argument

 

[Shunwei]

I agree with you 100% about a 4.0 at a JC or a CC should not hold a candle to a lower GPA at a reputable acedemic institutute. I also agree with your point about acedemic rigor compared to one standardized test. My original point was not all the greatest and brightest minds wind up a tier 1 or 2 tier school. I used my friend as an example, a individual who made the best of what was around him. He attended a tier 5 school and was one of a select few(4) with the privilege to study at Cambridge which he turned down to attend Berkley. I and other late bloomers or non-traditionals who financially or because of proximity/logistics (i.e. family) can't get a "premium" education, so they have to take their "inferior" high GPA's from a state school and there "meaningless" high test scores and get into wherever will take them.

You missed my point dude, I wasn't knocking prestigious institutions or trying to invalidate the many positive attributes their education provides. P chem is P chem no matter where you take it, and I have taken classes at a tier 1 school, and found them to be no more difficult (even a bit easier)then my lowly tier 5 satellite state school.

I agree with you completely in that there are bright minds out there that, either because of their choice or for financial reasons, are in lower tier schools. This is absolutely true and I know of many friends in such circumstances. I also understand that some so-called "elite" schools are not so elite in fact: for example, Harvard undergrad is well-known to be hard to get into, but their classes and grading are easy. However, my point is that to the ADCOMs these fine points and personal stories are often lost. Your friend may undoubtedly be smart, but in the eyes of the ADCOMs his good grades in a JC/CC will have a flawed tint--right or wrong as that may be. I am just pointing out, from extensive personal experience in this area, how ADCOMs view GPA in relation to the institution it was earned. Personally, although I came from what many would consider to be elite institutions (Rice is a highly ranked undergrad school and Berkeley a top 5 in Ph.D. programs), I really dislike elitist mentalities, but we have to deal with reality among the ADCOMs.

 

[Resonance]

Ok guys, check this out. This was posted when a similar topic was going around SDN. I don't know where it came from but it is a list of all schools and it gives them a ranking based on how difficult it is to get an A (I think). It ranks schools from 1 through 5, 1 being the hardest and 5 being the easiest. Hope this helps!

http://www.academicmanagement.com/a...s/Complete List of Schools (with Ranking).pdf

Those are not actual rankings, this is just a demo of the software this company markets to dental schools.

 

[DDSY]

Looking at the long posts by some people, I see that many are pretty passionate about this subject. This is very much understandable as many of you have dedicated a lot effort into getting into a very good undergrad or grad or have juggled job, family and personal life along with school.

Now here is what I believe to be a reasonable viewpoint: There is a correlation between the school you attended and how well you will perform either in dental school or your DAT. However, just because you have attended a certain institution does not necessarily mean that you are better than the person who underwent an "inferior" education. Tons of people receive a scholarship from or have attended the honors college of the latter. Many also can't afford the cost of some top tier institutions.

As for weighting admission into a dental school, even dental schools don't agree on this. Look at the stats of some dental schools and you see that some add bonus points to a high GPA, while others look at the DAT with a keen eye. The same concept applies to undergraduate colleges that have dropped the SAT as an admissions requirement and instead look at the GPA and extracurriculars only.

 

[BenignDMD]

Yes it is. I was referring to the UC system vs. the Cal state system in CA. Sorry for the confusion. But I think you understand my gist.

No confusion, I was just having fun