Help?! Ph.D. looking at dental school

[PhD2DDS]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hello everyone, first post and I'll get right to the point..
I'm currently finishing up a Ph.D program in Biology. For a variety of reasons, I don't want to pursue academia or biotech industry. I'd like to enter dentistry.

My undergraduate GPA is mediocre.
Overall 3.02
Science 3.02

I really only got into graduate school on the strength of high GRE score and solid recs from undergraduate research experience. I also took 7 science courses my final year of undergraduate and earned 6 A's, 1 B (3.8 GPA final year) so that trend helped. Of course in graduate school, my GPA is impeccable 😀

Overall 3.97 (including many dissertation/seminar/independent study/supervised teaching [teaching assistant] credits - viewed as inflation?)
Science 3.94 (only including 6 "regular science" courses e.g. Molecular Genetics, Comprehensive Biochem, etc.)

I'm wondering how dental schools would view such a candidate. I've tested in the 99th percentile on SAT, ACT, GRE, so I'm assuming high DAT scores with study.

How do they factor graduate GPA or terminal degree in to the selection process? Some of these courses will have been taken 10 years ago by the time I apply for dental school. Anyone see a problem with that?

I could use some advice, thanks.

 

[Dental156]

Dental schools are going to look at more then just your GPA. They also factor in your DAT score, letter of recommendations (2 prof, 1 dentist), shadowing time, volunteer time, research, etc. With that said, I think you would be in pretty good shape escpecially if you can do well on the DAT and show a true passion for dentistry.

I'm not really sure how they would look at your GPA. I do know that when you apply through AADSAS you have to break your classes into sections and they formulate their own GPA. Sections such as non-science, other-science, and bcp. I assume that you took most of the dental pre reqs (inorganic, organic, a&p, physics) in undergrad, what were your grades? If you didn't get a c or better you may have to take them again.

If I were you I would call up your school and try to setup an appointment with a pre dental advisor

 

[doc toothache]

I'm currently finishing up a Ph.D program in Biology. For a variety of reasons, I don't want to pursue academia or biotech industry. I'd like to enter dentistry.

My undergraduate GPA is mediocre.
Overall 3.02
Science 3.02

Overall 3.97 (including many dissertation/seminar/independent study/supervised teaching [teaching assistant] credits - viewed as inflation?)
Science 3.94 (only including 6 "regular science" courses e.g. Molecular Genetics, Comprehensive Biochem, etc.)

I'm wondering how dental schools would view such a candidate. I've tested in the 99th percentile on SAT, ACT, GRE, so I'm assuming high DAT scores with study.

How do they factor graduate GPA or terminal degree in to the selection process? Some of these courses will have been taken 10 years ago by the time I apply for dental school. Anyone see a problem with that?

I could use some advice, thanks.

In general, post graduate degrees are helpful since they provide proof that the candidate is capable of handling ds courses. For good measure, your DAT scores need to be commensurate with your graduate GPA. It is unlikely that your undergraduate GPA will have a negative impact. You will need to convince yourself as well as adcoms that your heart is in dentistry and shadowing should serve that purpose. In some cases you may be asked to explain the circuitous route you took before deciding on a career in dentistry. Your questions should be addressed directly to the Dean of Admissions of the school you are interested in.

 

[armorshell]

In my opinion, with a strong DAT score and your post graduate work, you would probably be a competitive candidate at any dental school. I think a PhD is a strong signal that you're going to be able to handle a dental school courseload, despite whatever mediocre GPA you might have had in undergrad. Knock the DAT out of the park, and you're going to have the upper echelon of competitive dental schools throwing money at you to attend.

As far as the older courses, I'm not precisely sure how that will work. PM Shunwei, or wait for him to find this thread, which I'm sure he eventually will. 😛

 

[Shunwei]

Hello everyone, first post and I'll get right to the point..
I'm currently finishing up a Ph.D program in Biology. For a variety of reasons, I don't want to pursue academia or biotech industry. I'd like to enter dentistry.

My undergraduate GPA is mediocre.
Overall 3.02
Science 3.02

I really only got into graduate school on the strength of high GRE score and solid recs from undergraduate research experience. I also took 7 science courses my final year of undergraduate and earned 6 A's, 1 B (3.8 GPA final year) so that trend helped. Of course in graduate school, my GPA is impeccable 😀

Overall 3.97 (including many dissertation/seminar/independent study/supervised teaching [teaching assistant] credits - viewed as inflation?)
Science 3.94 (only including 6 "regular science" courses e.g. Molecular Genetics, Comprehensive Biochem, etc.)

I'm wondering how dental schools would view such a candidate. I've tested in the 99th percentile on SAT, ACT, GRE, so I'm assuming high DAT scores with study.

How do they factor graduate GPA or terminal degree in to the selection process? Some of these courses will have been taken 10 years ago by the time I apply for dental school. Anyone see a problem with that?

I could use some advice, thanks.

Well, as someone who's been there, I'd say that graduate GPAs (not post-bacs, but those in a full Ph.D. program) are a lot meaningless than the GPA in undergraduate. Let's face it--the courses in graduate school, whether its seminar or just research classes, are basically automatic A's if you show up and just do your stuff. Only a very courses actually have tests. So while it is good that you have a good graduate GPA (at least better than having a low one), I wouldn't really place too high of a hope on its being able to completely compensate for your undergraduate grades.

As for your classes, I don't think that they should present a factor. To my knowledge, there are only five schools in the country that have an expiration date on when your undergraduate courses would count, so if you avoid these schools (or unless they are your dream school) you'd be fine. However, I agree with the other posters above that in your situation you must do very well (I'd say 23+) on the DAT to show that you did take something with you during your time in graduate school, and that your undergraduate GPA does not accurately reflect your knowledge. And while you did well on the SAT, ACT, and GRE, the DAT is a very different animal as it is knowledge-based. A lot of the material I suspect you haven't touched for the last ten years, so don't approach it thinking that your performance on the your old standardized tests will automatically translate into success. I'd say allot yourself a good 4-5 months for review and that should be enough.

You can try to leverage your experience in graduate school in your essay, but one thing you must keep in mind is why you are making the transition into dentistry. Believe me in your case everyone will make that inquiry. It is important that you come up with a fairly convincing reason for doing so, and also be prepared to answer questions about whether you want to participate in dental research as a faculty member when you graduate.

I was in pretty much your shoes exactly about a year ago when I decided to switch careers, and I am really glad that it's done and over with. It's definitely do-able, but be prepared to for some hard work as you still need to put in the time, effort, and money to do so. Make sure you also discuss your desire candidly with your mentor to get at least a lukewarm support, because a lot of people in the academia frown upon any endeavor other than science.

 

[doc toothache]

Well, as someone who's been there, I'd say that graduate GPAs (not post-bacs, but those in a full Ph.D. program) are a lot meaningless than the GPA in undergraduate. Let's face it--the courses in graduate school, whether its seminar or just research classes, are basically automatic A's if you show up and just do your stuff. Only a very courses actually have tests.

So there are some graduate programs where obtaining a Ph.D. is as easy as getting an AA degree from a community college? And we are not talking about a $19.95 special from a diploma mill, right? If this personal experience or is it anecdotal? Perhaps we can get a short list of those programs since in all likelihood there are some predents that might find it useful.

 

[PhD2DDS]

So there are some graduate programs where obtaining a Ph.D. is as easy as getting an AA degree from a community college? And we are not talking about a $19.95 special from a diploma mill, right? If this personal experience or is it anecdotal? Perhaps we can get a short list of those programs since in all likelihood there are some predents that might find it useful.

No, I think Shunwei is talking about rubber stamp courses like seminars - you sign in, listen to someone present their research once a week, maybe a 1 page summary due (just to prove you were there) and you get an A; dissertation - you do your research, and I don't personally know anyone who received less than an S or A from their advisor (some may prefer to assign S to avoid inflation). There may be some other courses where the professor reputedly folds the class sheet in half, top half getting A's, bottom half getting B's. There were some rumors, in courses with mixed senior undergrad and 1st year grad students that the grads were getting preferential grading. I didn't find this to be true but I got the impression some undergrads were bitter over concerns that we were distorting the curve.

I do have lots of seminar/dissertation/etc credits but I've taken 6-7 regular competitive courses that are graded (some grad students only got C's, one got a D and dropped out eventually).

 

[Shunwei]

So there are some graduate programs where obtaining a Ph.D. is as easy as getting an AA degree from a community college? And we are not talking about a $19.95 special from a diploma mill, right? If this personal experience or is it anecdotal? Perhaps we can get a short list of those programs since in all likelihood there are some predents that might find it useful.

doc, what I am saying is that for ph.d. programs, a lot of the "classes" there are nothing more than seminars or "research classes," i.e. your getting credit for getting research done in your mentor's lab. Unless you are on really bad terms with your advisor or simply don't come to seminars, it's really quite hard to get less than an "A" in these "classes." The real didactic classes for ph.d. candidates occur in the first two years, but even then the course load is really quite light. For example, at UCB, I had eight classes required to finish in my first two years, and even many of these were the aforementioned seminar classes, where your primary and perhaps only obligation is to present a seminar on a topic. This is why those of us in there consider graduate gpa's to be a joke, and no one really even asks you about it at all when you are applying for postdocs or jobs (the only time I can think of is when you apply for an NIH fellowship, and it was only one question). Now, post-bacs or masters program where you take mainly, or exclusively, classes is another topic entirely.

This is not to say the ph.d. is easy. Far from it, the real difficulty associated with the ph.d. is not the classes, but the actual experimentation, learning about speaking and writing skills, and dealing with internecine politics in the academic department. All I am trying to say is that the OP should not think that his/her ph.d. gpa will amply cover up for the relatively low undergraduate grades. In my judgment, it won't.

 

[ucla2134]

Well, as someone who's been there, I'd say that graduate GPAs (not post-bacs, but those in a full Ph.D. program) are a lot meaningless than the GPA in undergraduate. Let's face it--the courses in graduate school, whether its seminar or just research classes, are basically automatic A's if you show up and just do your stuff. Only a very courses actually have tests. So while it is good that you have a good graduate GPA (at least better than having a low one), I wouldn't really place too high of a hope on its being able to completely compensate for your undergraduate grades.

As for your classes, I don't think that they should present a factor. To my knowledge, there are only five schools in the country that have an expiration date on when your undergraduate courses would count, so if you avoid these schools (or unless they are your dream school) you'd be fine. However, I agree with the other posters above that in your situation you must do very well (I'd say 23+) on the DAT to show that you did take something with you during your time in graduate school, and that your undergraduate GPA does not accurately reflect your knowledge. And while you did well on the SAT, ACT, and GRE, the DAT is a very different animal as it is knowledge-based. A lot of the material I suspect you haven't touched for the last ten years, so don't approach it thinking that your performance on the your old standardized tests will automatically translate into success. I'd say allot yourself a good 4-5 months for review and that should be enough.

You can try to leverage your experience in graduate school in your essay, but one thing you must keep in mind is why you are making the transition into dentistry. Believe me in your case everyone will make that inquiry. It is important that you come up with a fairly convincing reason for doing so, and also be prepared to answer questions about whether you want to participate in dental research as a faculty member when you graduate.

I was in pretty much your shoes exactly about a year ago when I decided to switch careers, and I am really glad that it's done and over with. It's definitely do-able, but be prepared to for some hard work as you still need to put in the time, effort, and money to do so. Make sure you also discuss your desire candidly with your mentor to get at least a lukewarm support, because a lot of people in the academia frown upon any endeavor other than science.

Wow phD is that easy. I always think people with science phD are smarter than any real doctors.

 

[TheWiredNerv]

Wow phD is that easy. I always think people with science phD are smarter than any real doctors.

I wouldn't call a PhD program easy in the slightest.

 

[blankguy]

PhD are for motivated self learners because you create new knowledge. In a sense they maybe smarter than doctors who practice using the knowledge that a PhD has uncovered.

 

[ChronarchB]

Shunwei,

Grad school is NOT easy A's. You don't grades base on showing up. My master program is harder than undergrad. No curve or anything. I guess it depends on the program you're in, im in a program that takes the classes as med students and everyone in the program are also applying to med/dental school or competition is high.

 

[SHC1984]

I am not sure about PhD programs, but I have taken MANY seminar and research classes in undergrad and they are SUPER EASY and its impossible to get anything less then an A. So I will have to agree with Shunwei here.

doc, what I am saying is that for ph.d. programs, a lot of the "classes" there are nothing more than seminars or "research classes," i.e. your getting credit for getting research done in your mentor's lab. Unless you are on really bad terms with your advisor or simply don't come to seminars, it's really quite hard to get less than an "A" in these "classes." The real didactic classes for ph.d. candidates occur in the first two years, but even then the course load is really quite light. For example, at UCB, I had eight classes required to finish in my first two years, and even many of these were the aforementioned seminar classes, where your primary and perhaps only obligation is to present a seminar on a topic. This is why those of us in there consider graduate gpa's to be a joke, and no one really even asks you about it at all when you are applying for postdocs or jobs (the only time I can think of is when you apply for an NIH fellowship, and it was only one question). Now, post-bacs or masters program where you take mainly, or exclusively, classes is another topic entirely.

This is not to say the ph.d. is easy. Far from it, the real difficulty associated with the ph.d. is not the classes, but the actual experimentation, learning about speaking and writing skills, and dealing with internecine politics in the academic department. All I am trying to say is that the OP should not think that his/her ph.d. gpa will amply cover up for the relatively low undergraduate grades. In my judgment, it won't.

 

[armorshell]

Shunwei,

Grad school is NOT easy A's. You don't grades base on showing up. My master program is harder than undergrad. No curve or anything. I guess it depends on the program you're in, im in a program that takes the classes as med students and everyone in the program are also applying to med/dental school or competition is high.

It's always great when people miss the memo. Realize a post-bacc non-research masters is a completely different world than a biomedical sciences PhD program.

 

[fightingspirit]

Hello everyone, first post and I'll get right to the point..
I'm currently finishing up a Ph.D program in Biology. For a variety of reasons, I don't want to pursue academia or biotech industry. I'd like to enter dentistry.

My undergraduate GPA is mediocre.
Overall 3.02
Science 3.02

I really only got into graduate school on the strength of high GRE score and solid recs from undergraduate research experience. I also took 7 science courses my final year of undergraduate and earned 6 A's, 1 B (3.8 GPA final year) so that trend helped. Of course in graduate school, my GPA is impeccable 😀

Overall 3.97 (including many dissertation/seminar/independent study/supervised teaching [teaching assistant] credits - viewed as inflation?)
Science 3.94 (only including 6 "regular science" courses e.g. Molecular Genetics, Comprehensive Biochem, etc.)

I'm wondering how dental schools would view such a candidate. I've tested in the 99th percentile on SAT, ACT, GRE, so I'm assuming high DAT scores with study.

How do they factor graduate GPA or terminal degree in to the selection process? Some of these courses will have been taken 10 years ago by the time I apply for dental school. Anyone see a problem with that?

I could use some advice, thanks.

why do you wanna go to dental school as opposed to other health care fields?
have you researched your other options?

 

[PhD2DDS]

why do you wanna go to dental school as opposed to other health care fields?
have you researched your other options?

OK, just thinking out loud here about other health care fields.. I think an MD lifestyle would kill me. Life as a DVM would be better but I see some drawbacks that I'm unwilling to accept (I know some small and large animal vets). I have no interest in pharmacy, a pharmacology course was the only class I got a B in after I pulled it together in undergrad. Bored me to tears. Optometry interests me less than dentistry but I'm under the impression that it's less competitive..

After I graduate I'll find a job and save up money, prepare for the DAT (I'm very rusty), and take a couple of courses. My state school won't count AP toward prerequisites so I need to take at least one anyway. Maybe a couple more A's in science will help my application? Well that's the rough plan anyway. If I somehow land a nice job, then I just might be that 40 year old dental student coming off a doctorate and career I know someone who earned a law degree at the age of 50 while working full time as an engineer. He now practices law so.. it's a lifetime of learning!

 

[bluejellybelly]

Hi,

Just out of curiosity, how old are you? I know that the recent PhD programs have lengthened just a bit, but I was kinda curious...

Well, I know in a few schools that I applied to, graduate studies are rather important, but I'm sure they'll ask you as to WHY you switched to dentistry, and why you decided that biotech or academia wasn't for you. I think, in general, a lot of schools want some sort of commitment, and look for an applicant's potential dedication to the field. They might want more valid reasons as to why you want to become a dentist. You can decided that dentistry is great because of all the little things on the side... You know, not wanting a doctor's lifestyle, chosing dentistry because its more appealing in a competive sense... I mean, you could personally make that sort of a choice but it's probably not something you want to say to a committee. What are you going to state in your personal statement?

 

[jackbauer!]

We have a PhD in our class at Maryland. Awesome guy who brings a lot of wit and humility to the table. I would venture to say he is about 40 years old; has a family also. I don't know how he does it, but he says he would take dental school any day over slaving away doing bench top research.

You sound like a strong candidate. I have a lot of respect for people that have stuck through a PhD program... they're rough. I'm sure dental schools feel the same way. Rock out on the DAT and you're good to go.

best of luck to you!
jb!🙂

 

[Shunwei]

We have a PhD in our class at Maryland. Awesome guy who brings a lot of wit and humility to the table. I would venture to say he is about 40 years old; has a family also. I don't know how he does it, but he says he would take dental school any day over slaving away doing bench top research.

You sound like a strong candidate. I have a lot of respect for people that have stuck through a PhD program... they're rough. I'm sure dental schools feel the same way. Rock out on the DAT and you're good to go.

best of luck to you!
jb!🙂

That is admirable, but you know, I believe that there *is* a time when making a full career switch will skew the cost/benefits analysis noticeably towards the former. I am ten years younger than your colleague, and for me sometimes the thought of spending four years, 200k+, possibly two extra years specializing, and then spend some time getting my career off the ground seems daunting. When you are trying to do that at age 40, realistically there are many more challenges that should not be overlooked.

The caveat is that, of course, your colleague is not a guy of independent means. In that case making a career switch and investing the time/money can be viewed partly as a hobby/self-fullfillment, and there is nothing wrong with that. A M.D. can practice well for 10-15 years and save enough money for such a change, but 99.9% of the Ph.D.s who's worked for the same amount of time won't have that kind of luxury, and in fact in the current climate in Science won't be able to even afford an upper-tier house.

 

[jackbauer!]

That is admirable, but you know, I believe that there *is* a time when making a full career switch will skew the cost/benefits analysis noticeably towards the former. I am ten years younger than your colleague, and for me sometimes the thought of spending four years, 200k+, possibly two extra years specializing, and then spend some time getting my career off the ground seems daunting. When you are trying to do that at age 40, realistically there are many more challenges that should not be overlooked.

The caveat is that, of course, your colleague is not a guy of independent means. In that case making a career switch and investing the time/money can be viewed partly as a hobby/self-fullfillment, and there is nothing wrong with that. A M.D. can practice well for 10-15 years and save enough money for such a change, but 99.9% of the Ph.D.s who's worked for the same amount of time won't have that kind of luxury, and in fact in the current climate in Science won't be able to even afford an upper-tier house.

Agreed. From a financial standpoint, this guy may or may not come out on top. But, he is happier now than he was in academia and industry and you can't put a price on that.

jb!🙂

 

[doc toothache]

No, I think Shunwei is talking about rubber stamp courses like seminars - you sign in, listen to someone present their research once a week, maybe a 1 page summary due (just to prove you were there) and you get an A;
I do have lots of seminar/dissertation/etc credits but I've taken 6-7 regular competitive courses that are graded (some grad students only got C's, one got a D and dropped out eventually).

doc, what I am saying is that for ph.d. programs, a lot of the "classes" there are nothing more than seminars or "research classes," i.e. your getting credit for getting research done in your mentor's lab. Unless you are on really bad terms with your advisor or simply don't come to seminars, it's really quite hard to get less than an "A" in these "classes." The real didactic classes for ph.d. candidates occur in the first two years, but even then the course load is really quite light. For example, at UCB, I had eight classes required to finish in my first two years, and even many of these were the aforementioned seminar classes, where your primary and perhaps only obligation is to present a seminar on a topic. This is why those of us in there consider graduate gpa's to be a joke, and no one really even asks you about it at all when you are applying for postdocs or jobs (the only time I can think of is when you apply for an NIH fellowship, and it was only one question). Now, post-bacs or masters program where you take mainly, or exclusively, classes is another topic entirely.

You think your Ph.D. is a joke................... check
Not all Ph.D. programs are created equal.....check

 

[NewMexDent]

You think your Ph.D. is a joke................... check
Not all Ph.D. programs are created equal.....check

I don't think that anyone was implying that their Ph.D. was a joke or that their program was a joke. They were speaking about coursework and GPA, not the program in it's entirety. A Ph.D. program is so much more than just coursework and GPA.

Obtaining a Ph.D. is by no means easy, in fact it's probably quite difficult. Sure, the coursework may be easy but performing original research and composing dissertations is definately not a walk in the park.

Judging a Ph.D. program based on its course work alone is like disregarding the clinical portion of a dental education.

 

[PhD2DDS]

Hi,

Just out of curiosity, how old are you? I know that the recent PhD programs have lengthened just a bit, but I was kinda curious...

Well, I know in a few schools that I applied to, graduate studies are rather important, but I'm sure they'll ask you as to WHY you switched to dentistry, and why you decided that biotech or academia wasn't for you. I think, in general, a lot of schools want some sort of commitment, and look for an applicant's potential dedication to the field. They might want more valid reasons as to why you want to become a dentist. You can decided that dentistry is great because of all the little things on the side... You know, not wanting a doctor's lifestyle, chosing dentistry because its more appealing in a competive sense... I mean, you could personally make that sort of a choice but it's probably not something you want to say to a committee. What are you going to state in your personal statement?

Hi, I notice most of my peers are graduating in 6+ years now rather than the traditional 5 years. I'll easily be in my 30's by the time I graduate dental school. I'll be thinking hard about how to spin this switch positively without criticizing other fields but still being as upfront as I can (won't be easy). I still have time to develop an extracurricular pre-dental resume. I hope to gain some experience that will help me to express my intrinsic motivation.

We have a PhD in our class at Maryland. Awesome guy who brings a lot of wit and humility to the table. I would venture to say he is about 40 years old; has a family also. I don't know how he does it, but he says he would take dental school any day over slaving away doing bench top research.

You sound like a strong candidate. I have a lot of respect for people that have stuck through a PhD program... they're rough. I'm sure dental schools feel the same way. Rock out on the DAT and you're good to go.

best of luck to you!
jb!🙂

Thanks for the encouragement. I agree with your last statement regarding the cost/benefit analysis.

 

[PhD2DDS]

You think your Ph.D. is a joke................... check
Not all Ph.D. programs are created equal.....check

I think there's a misunderstanding of the Ph.D. program in this thread.. The grades are not the important part. I guess this is a strange paradigm for current and former pre-health students but one can't jump to the conclusion that a Ph.D. is a joke because it's easy to earn some A's (I separated my graduate GPA in the original post for this reason.) Contributing original knowledge to a field, the important part, is not easy.

 

[Shunwei]

You think your Ph.D. is a joke................... check
Not all Ph.D. programs are created equal.....check

I don't think you even have any inkling of how a Ph.D.'s quality is gauged. This isn't your undergraduate degree, or a masters, where you just take classes, go through exams, and then just hope for a grade on a piece of paper. A Ph.D., in my judgment, is probably the most difficult and amorphous education out there to define. From my experience, the three most important gauges or a Ph.D. education are:

1) The # and impact level of your manuscripts
2) The reputation and prestige of the lab you are doing your thesis in
3) The reputation and prestige of the institution with which you are affiliated

You don't measure anyone based on GPA, because the classes themselves are not the vessels from you you gain your knowledge. The knowledge you gain from getting the degree is largely self-taught, learning from protocol books, exploring, trial-and-error, and occasionally, collaborating with colleagues. You learn reading and writing skills. And most importantly, you learn to think like a scientist and know how to identify an original problem, devise hypothesis and predictions, create a feasible experimental protocol, carry out the test, and interpret results. None of this is ever, or could be, taught in a class. From the graduate schools' perspective, you should already carry sufficient basic science knowledge with you to graduate school; you then constantly supplement you knowledge by tirelessly updating yourself with journal articles.

Graduate school is not like dental school. The latter is highly structured with set milestones: you take classes for the first two years, take the boards, go to clinic, fullfill your requirements, and you are given a DDS and let loose. The Ph.D.? It is mostly a mental training program, where you are placed on uncertain projects, asked to explore your own ways, devise experiments, and then, if you are lucky enough collect data for presentation and publication. Very likely, and in fact this will happen to everyone at one time or another, you will experience a project that is a dead-end, costing you years of work and agony for no demonstrable result. Would you call this easy?

Go ask any Ph.D. on this, and see what their take is on how important GPA is. It's all about papers, presentations, seminars, and pedigree. In my mind, going through these things are 10x harder than simply sitting through a class, doing rote learning, and take a test once every six weeks.

 

[doc toothache]

I don't think you even have any inkling of how a Ph.D.'s quality is gauged. This isn't your undergraduate degree, or a masters, where you just take classes, go through exams, and then just hope for a grade on a piece of paper. A Ph.D., in my judgment, is probably the most difficult and amorphous education out there to define. From my experience, the three most important gauges or a Ph.D. education are:

1) The # and impact level of your manuscripts
2) The reputation and prestige of the lab you are doing your thesis in
3) The reputation and prestige of the institution with which you are affiliated

Go ask any Ph.D. on this, and see what their take is on how important GPA is. It's all about papers, presentations, seminars, and pedigree. In my mind, going through these things are 10x harder than simply sitting through a class, doing rote learning, and take a test once every six weeks.

In general; a thesis may be a requirement for an M.S. and a dissertation is required for a Ph.D.

GPA is important at the graduate level if attaining a degree is the goal since a grade lower than a B in the major subject or an overall GPA less than a B is unacceptable.

 

[armorshell]

*gets some popcorn*

 

[ucla2134]

I am not sure about PhD programs, but I have taken MANY seminar and research classes in undergrad and they are SUPER EASY and its impossible to get anything less then an A. So I will have to agree with Shunwei here.

then your undergrad school is easy. At ucla, to get a research position is competitive. After each quarter, you have to turn in more than 10 pages science paper that was not graded by your professor but by the CHAIRMAN of that department. In addition you have to do the lecture presentation of your own project in front of 100 students

 

[Shunwei]

In general; a thesis may be a requirement for an M.S. and a dissertation is required for a Ph.D.

GPA is important at the graduate level if attaining a degree is the goal since a grade lower than a B in the major subject or an overall GPA less than a B is unacceptable.

I have not heard of anyone actually fail out of grad school or have a gpa that led to their dismissal. I have heard of plenty cases where people drop out, but not for grade reasons just as presented above. Grad school is not structured so that those filtered out are done so because of rote learning problems, because this kind of learning is not what's valued in a Ph.D.

Obviously you have no idea what grad school is all about by your obvious insistence on draggin GPA into the discussion. I have already mentioned why GPA in grad school is not considered a vital statistic. Can you get kicked out of grad school with a 2.0 GPA? Yes. But is easy to get a 2.0 GPA when classes are considered more of a formality? I'd say that's also a challenge, only if one acts like a total jerk or completely refuses to go to lab. Your misunderstanding stems from the fact that all your life you have been under structured, hard-lined education--those of us who survived a Ph.D. knows that it is nothing like any other form of schooling.

 

[armorshell]

then your undergrad school is easy. At ucla, to get a research position is competitive. After each quarter, you have to turn in more than 10 pages science paper that was not graded by your professor but by the CHAIRMAN of that department. In addition you have to do the lecture presentation of your own project in front of 100 students

Oh, get off it. The "easyness" of an institution isn't determined by some random science research classes, and you might not even be talking about the same thing.
Also, if you're willing to step down off your high horse to listen for a moment, realize that your experience isn't localized to UCLA. I could copy and paste what you said and apply it to my own undergrad research experience at a so-called "4th tier" university.

 

[Shunwei]

then your undergrad school is easy. At ucla, to get a research position is competitive. After each quarter, you have to turn in more than 10 pages science paper that was not graded by your professor but by the CHAIRMAN of that department. In addition you have to do the lecture presentation of your own project in front of 100 students

Sounds like an undergraduate thesis course. What you say is pretty routine, actually. I think what SHC is trying to say is that as long as you put in the time for research and doing the presentation will get you the A. In my experience, I have not heard of anyone get less than an A- when they go to lab. Even when their presentations and reports are bad, they are more of a formality and training rather than the actual determinants of a grade.

Let's try to keep this post on topic to help the OP. For those of you who wish to criticize, downplay the significance, or demean, those of us with a Ph.D., I suggest that you don't do so unless you get yourself a Ph.D. first. The Ph.D. is by no means easy. Go to your schools' labs and ask the resident grad students there, as well as the postdocs, and get some firsthand information out of them. In the Science world, grades and GPA have no influence whatsoever, at all. The real determinants have always been papers, papers, and papers. The President of the Academy of Sciences, the Editors of Cell, the Directors of Research Insitutes, and your local professors are not chosen because of their GPA--it's by their publication record, ideas, productivity. This may be hard for many of you (especially Doc Toothache, who I'd gladly vote as the Curmudgeous Mascot of SDN) to understand, but that's the harsh truth.

 

[ChaseitHall]

My master's program only offers 2 one-hour seminar courses and my research and thesis grades are given as S (satisfactory), so they don't even factor into my GPA. I've had much more asked of me as a grad student than I ever did as an undergrad.

Props to you for getting your PhD. With a good DAT score you will be a competitive applicant.

Good luck!

 

[fightingspirit]

OK, just thinking out loud here about other health care fields.. I think an MD lifestyle would kill me. Life as a DVM would be better but I see some drawbacks that I'm unwilling to accept (I know some small and large animal vets). I have no interest in pharmacy, a pharmacology course was the only class I got a B in after I pulled it together in undergrad. Bored me to tears. Optometry interests me less than dentistry but I'm under the impression that it's less competitive..

After I graduate I'll find a job and save up money, prepare for the DAT (I'm very rusty), and take a couple of courses. My state school won't count AP toward prerequisites so I need to take at least one anyway. Maybe a couple more A's in science will help my application? Well that's the rough plan anyway. If I somehow land a nice job, then I just might be that 40 year old dental student coming off a doctorate and career I know someone who earned a law degree at the age of 50 while working full time as an engineer. He now practices law so.. it's a lifetime of learning!

ok, the true reason behind my question was to find out whether you made the decision to go dental out of pure logic and financial planning or out of interest in the practice of dentistry. it is obvious that your decision was based on logic. i myself based my decision to go dental the same way. however, i made a big mistake by doing that and as a friendly advice, i suggest that you reconsider the way you arrive at your decision.

if you depend on logic, then you are basically playing the odds; if you turn out to have the right HANDS and the right PERSONALITY for dentistry and dental education, then you're a winner! you hit the jack pot!! kudos. BUT, if you don't turn out to be a good fit, then you're lost! you are going to be average (if not mediocre), depressed, and troubled. playing the odds itself is not wrong when you consider fields like allopathic/osteopathic medicine, PA, PT, and optometry, and pharmacy because in all of these fields, the correlation between effort and performance is much higher than that in dentistry. dental education is unique in that aspect and this is something you MUST take into consideration when you make your decision.

allow me to suggest another way for deciding: try to assist a dentist or a specialist within a dental discipline. i am not talking about volunteering or shaddowing. i did both of these and they are useless! assisting gives you the opportunity to see more, do more, and feel more. you will know whether or not you like it and whether or not you're cut out for it. you also need to do some research about what it takes to go through dental school.

you also have a PhD. clearly, you are the analytical and intellectually creative type. this my friend is more likely to make your d-school journey more difficult. you are going to have a difficult time memorizing power points without understanding them, which is what you'd have to do on many occasions in d-school. on many occasions, you will be in a situation when you'd have to do things without preparation and have to do whatever it takes to get things done and signed off. in other times, you'll have to change your methods depending on who's supervising or signing off your work. for the analytical mind, this is a world of chaos and confusion, a problem. for the pragmatic, well-disciplined, clever man, it's a walk in the park. besides, the d-school curiculum is extremely intense leaving no time and energy for creative students to do SIGNIFICANT and THOROUGH research or read articles. d-students and dental professionals consider d-school professors/researchers as men and women who could not make it in private practice. they generally dont give them the same respect that say med-students give to their professors. i am trying to explain to you the unique culture of dentistry and dental education. dentistry and dental education are awesome, but only for those who are cut out for it, and no one else. do yourself a favor and start assisting a dentist to make a better decision.

 

[PhD2DDS]

A Ph.D., in my judgment, is probably the most difficult and amorphous education out there to define.

<cut>

You don't measure anyone based on GPA, because the classes themselves are not the vessels from you you gain your knowledge. The knowledge you gain from getting the degree is largely self-taught, learning from protocol books, exploring, trial-and-error, and occasionally, collaborating with colleagues. You learn reading and writing skills. And most importantly, you learn to think like a scientist and know how to identify an original problem, devise hypothesis and predictions, create a feasible experimental protocol, carry out the test, and interpret results. None of this is ever, or could be, taught in a class. From the graduate schools' perspective, you should already carry sufficient basic science knowledge with you to graduate school; you then constantly supplement you knowledge by tirelessly updating yourself with journal articles.

<cut>

The Ph.D.? It is mostly a mental training program, where you are placed on uncertain projects, asked to explore your own ways, devise experiments, and then, if you are lucky enough collect data for presentation and publication. Very likely, and in fact this will happen to everyone at one time or another, you will experience a project that is a dead-end, costing you years of work and agony for no demonstrable result. Would you call this easy?

Go ask any Ph.D. on this, and see what their take is on how important GPA is. It's all about papers, presentations, seminars, and pedigree. In my mind, going through these things are 10x harder than simply sitting through a class, doing rote learning, and take a test once every six weeks.

You've summed it up perfectly Shunwei, the difficulty and sometimes the pathos.. Frankly I'm sick of uncertainty and welcome some spoon feeding.

ok, the true reason behind my question was to find out whether you made the decision to go dental out of pure logic and financial planning or out of interest in the practice of dentistry. it is obvious that your decision was based on logic. i myself based my decision to go dental the same way. however, i made a big mistake by doing that and as a friendly advice, i suggest that you reconsider the way you arrive at your decision.

if you depend on logic, then you are basically playing the odds; if you turn out to have the right HANDS and the right PERSONALITY for dentistry and dental education, then you're a winner! you hit the jack pot!! kudos. BUT, if you don't turn out to be a good fit, then you're lost! you are going to be average (if not mediocre), depressed, and troubled. playing the odds itself is not wrong when you consider fields like allopathic/osteopathic medicine, PA, PT, and optometry, and pharmacy because in all of these fields, the correlation between effort and performance is much higher than that in dentistry. dental education is unique in that aspect and this is something you MUST take into consideration when you make your decision.

allow me to suggest another way for deciding: try to assist a dentist or a specialist within a dental discipline. i am not talking about volunteering or shaddowing. i did both of these and they are useless! assisting gives you the opportunity to see more, do more, and feel more. you will know whether or not you like it and whether or not you're cut out for it. you also need to do some research about what it takes to go through dental school.

you also have a PhD. clearly, you are the analytical and intellectually creative type. this my friend is more likely to make your d-school journey more difficult. you are going to have a difficult time memorizing power points without understanding them, which is what you'd have to do on many occasions in d-school. on many occasions, you will be in a situation when you'd have to do things without preparation and have to do whatever it takes to get things done and signed off. in other times, you'll have to change your methods depending on who's supervising or signing off your work. for the analytical mind, this is a world of chaos and confusion, a problem. for the pragmatic, well-disciplined, clever man, it's a walk in the park. besides, the d-school curiculum is extremely intense leaving no time and energy for creative students to do SIGNIFICANT and THOROUGH research or read articles. d-students and dental professionals consider d-school professors/researchers as men and women who could not make it in private practice. they generally dont give them the same respect that say med-students give to their professors. i am trying to explain to you the unique culture of dentistry and dental education. dentistry and dental education are awesome, but only for those who are cut out for it, and no one else. do yourself a favor and start assisting a dentist to make a better decision.

I'll take your advice to heart, thank you. Do you regret your career choice?

My master's program only offers 2 one-hour seminar courses and my research and thesis grades are given as S (satisfactory), so they don't even factor into my GPA. I've had much more asked of me as a grad student than I ever did as an undergrad.

Props to you for getting your PhD. With a good DAT score you will be a competitive applicant.

Good luck!

Thanks for the encouragement. And I don't have that doctorate quite yet 😉

 

[doc toothache]

I don't think you even have any inkling of how a Ph.D.'s quality is gauged... From my experience, the three most important gauges or a Ph.D. education are:

1) The # and impact level of your manuscripts
2) The reputation and prestige of the lab you are doing your thesis in
3) The reputation and prestige of the institution with which you are affiliated

You don't measure anyone based on GPA, because the classes themselves are not the vessels from you you gain your knowledge.

Graduate school is not like dental school. The latter is highly structured with set milestones: you take classes for the first two years, take the boards, go to clinic, fullfill your requirements, and you are given a DDS and let loose. The Ph.D.? It is mostly a mental training program, where you are placed on uncertain projects, asked to explore your own ways, devise experiments, and then, if you are lucky enough collect data for presentation and publication. Very likely, and in fact this will happen to everyone at one time or another, you will experience a project that is a dead-end, costing you years of work and agony for no demonstrable result. Would you call this easy?

Go ask any Ph.D. on this, and see what their take is on how important GPA is. It's all about papers, presentations, seminars, and pedigree. In my mind, going through these things are 10x harder than simply sitting through a class, doing rote learning, and take a test once every six weeks.

Obviously you have no idea what grad school is all about by your obvious insistence on draggin GPA into the discussion. I have already mentioned why GPA in grad school is not considered a vital statistic. Your misunderstanding stems from the fact that all your life you have been under structured, hard-lined education--those of us who survived a Ph.D. knows that it is nothing like any other form of schooling.

Let's try to keep this post on topic to help the OP. For those of you who wish to criticize, downplay the significance, or demean, those of us with a Ph.D., I suggest that you don't do so unless you get yourself a Ph.D. first. The Ph.D. is by no means easy. Go to your schools' labs and ask the resident grad students there, as well as the postdocs, and get some firsthand information out of them. In the Science world, grades and GPA have no influence whatsoever, at all. The real determinants have always been papers, papers, and papers. The President of the Academy of Sciences, the Editors of Cell, the Directors of Research Insitutes, and your local professors are not chosen because of their GPA--it's by their publication record, ideas, productivity. This may be hard for many of you (especially Doc Toothache, who I'd gladly vote as the Curmudgeous Mascot of SDN) to understand, but that's the harsh truth.

First you suggest that graduate courses are a walk in the park and in your words GPA considerations are a joke. Then when some interpret that to mean that a Ph.D. is easy to obtain you get defensive/offensive.

Your thesis/dissertation on the important gauges of a Ph.D. education makes sense provided, we are evaluating a candidate for an academic or any position you have enumerated. Whether or not these are important attributes for adcoms to consider when evaluating candidates for admission to dental school may be debatable. Since these are not quantifiable, adcoms will undoubtedly resort to the use of GPA. How much influence these will have on the final decision is anyone's guess.

To suggest that non Ph.D. should be excluded from evaluating those with the degree is a tall order. Interestingly, you have not attended ds, yet you feel qualified to pass judgment on what ds is all about.

 

[bluejellybelly]

I don't think a PhD is a walk in the park by any means.

PhD2DDS, go for it. You sound like you've given it a lot of thought, and if you really like the dental field (no seriously, the only way I think the field is good for an individual is that they absolutely have to love what they do....), then I'm sure the dental schools would like you. 😉👍

 

[Shunwei]

First you suggest that graduate courses are a walk in the park and in your words GPA considerations are a joke. Then when some interpret that to mean that a Ph.D. is easy to obtain you get defensive/offensive.

Your thesis/dissertation on the important gauges of a Ph.D. education makes sense provided, we are evaluating a candidate for an academic or any position you have enumerated. Whether or not these are important attributes for adcoms to consider when evaluating candidates for admission to dental school may be debatable. Since these are not quantifiable, adcoms will undoubtedly resort to the use of GPA. How much influence these will have on the final decision is anyone's guess.

To suggest that non Ph.D. should be excluded from evaluating those with the degree is a tall order. Interestingly, you have not attended ds, yet you feel qualified to pass judgment on what ds is all about.

You are not on the admissions committee, are you? If not, how can you say with the certainty and gusto you claim that gpa is the yard of measure? I have already told you that Ph.D.'s in the real world are never gauged on their GPAs, and that there are plenty of other attributes on which the quality of their work is attained. So what you are saing is that a 4.0 GPA Ph.D. in grad school, no papers, is more qualified than one who is 3.6 with four papers to an admissions committee? The folks on these committees are not fools. They may not have gone to grad school themselves (although many did, at least the associate dean at UCLA with whom I interviewed), but they know from association and affiliation that the focus of grad school is *not* the classes. It's the years of self-exploration, learning, and gaining a mix of higher analytical skills that marks the real Doctorate. In fact, on many secondary applications I was allowed to discuss my research and append a list of my publications, which in my judgment yields a lot more information than the meaningless and inflated GPAs in grad school.

And oh yeah, I am not claiming that I know everything about DS--I do not. In fact, in my past posts, I have repeatedly said that I'd imagine that DS will be very hard, albeit more on a different level from grad school--intense didactic learning, hard clinical work, etc. However, on my interviews this year I happened to (perhaps by design) be placed with interviewers that were themselves first Doctorates then DDS. These folks told me point-blank that compared to the nebulous nature of grad education, the DDS is actually easier, if only just because it is more structured and you know what to expect. You get grades in every class based on how you do; in grad school, you don't get "graded" on your thesis (contrary to your specific use of moniker, we in the field simply refer to the dissertation as a thesis), you don't get "graded" for each of the papers you write and publish, you don't get "graded" for the experiments that you do, you don't get "graded" for the teaching job you do as a GSI, etc. All of this work is not reflected in the so-called GPA, which makes the grades themselves largely a formality for the necessary courses in the first couple of years. The real marks of a Ph.D. is the productivity (# of papers), skill set obtained (biochemistry, histology, etc.), prestige of the lab (pedigree and reputation of work), maturation of mental prowess (how to take a problem and bring it to a publication), and the recommendation of your committee/advisor from your defense and years of work.

In short, I think you are entirely missing the crux of the issue.

 

[doc toothache]

You are not on the admissions committee, are you?

An Arsenio Hall moment?

The real marks of a Ph.D. is the productivity (# of papers), skill set obtained (biochemistry, histology, etc.), prestige of the lab (pedigree and reputation of work), maturation of mental prowess (how to take a problem and bring it to a publication), and the recommendation of your committee/advisor from your defense and years of work.

🙄One can imagine an adcom thinking "gee whiz this Ph.D. guy/gal has only 15 publications on the Tropical Forrest Fauna in Iceland in the Patagonian J. of Nature. Twenty five would have made this applicant so much more competitive".🙄

You get grades in every class based on how you do; in grad school, you don't get "graded" on your thesis (contrary to your specific use of moniker, we in the field simply refer to the dissertation as a thesis),

However used or misused the terms may be even in the vernacular of Ph.D. peers, it ain't gonna mak eet rite.

.......

There are heck of a lot of trees out there but where in tarnation is that damn forrest.

 

[dr bojangles]

fight night.....shunwei vs. doctootache. with your guest judge, weighing in on every blow-by-blow and schooling (literally) us all, Dr. Schmidt:
http://www.ucsfhealth.org/adult/cgi-bin/prd.cgi?action=DISPLAYDOCTOR&doctorid=27080

phds are hard, kudos on your undertaking of said degree. getting back to your original query, your gpa will be considered for undergrad, and unfortunately perhaps less so for grad. because nature of the grad degree, your body of research/pubs will be better show of academic success. definitely check on the schools for dates of pre-requisite coursework, and be prepared to slam the DATs to prove mastery of those subjects.
as mentioned way before this somewhere, i think, the AADSAS application will breakdown the classes, likely averaging undergrad and grad gpa. no worries, as they see copies of all transcripts, so trends, etc. will be noted. good luck!

 

[jackbauer!]

you both sound like a bunch of whiny girls.

closing thread.

jb!🙂