Intentionally Flunking Out

[jes1ca]

---

Members don't see this ad.

All right, I had an interview Monday at UMKC, and the person who interviewed me brought up an interesting point. He was someone in the administration of the school, and he knows a lot of inside information. He told me that several dental schools accept more people than their facilities can take so that they can flunk them out and get more money that way. And this is intentional. When I asked him what schools, he said that as a professional, he could not tell me such information. I was just wondering if this is actually true and what schools might do this.

 

[rsweeney]

What he said to you seems a little extreme to me. From my understanding, schools intentionally accept a larger number of applicants (i.e. have a high yield) because a statistically predetermined number of aceptees decline to go to their state schools or elsewhere---it makes sense. If schools only chose the exact number of students they need to occupy their class, then who is to say a given number of them won't decline the acceptance. Even though it seems that the potential for schools over-extend themselves exists (and it does), in the end they statistically break even and have a full class.

 

[jes1ca]

i meant that they enroll extra students that they know will flunk out after a year or two.

 

[speter33]

It's possible, since they know approximately how many students will flunk out, they might enroll a few extra. But they don't intentionally flunk them out, the students flunk themselves out.

 

[Mudduck]

I think what jes1ca is referring to is actually admitting students, they pay their first-year tuition/expenses, then make it extremely difficult to pass a couple of classes. Survival of the fittest at its worst. Once you attend the first day (???) of class, your tuition is probably non-refundable. So, I think her question is dealing with the 20-30-40 K dollars for a year of tuition, not the 700 dollar deposit to hold your seat.

I have heard a little about this. NYU is notorious on this forum for that, but I have not seen it first hand, so for me it is simply a rumor. At schools that truly care about educating competent dentists, this should not be a problem at all. Yes, the student has the primary responsibility to learn, but schools that care do not overbook, with a failure quota in mind.

 

[ItsGavinC]

Here's a good point: schools can't FLUNK you out if you don't FLUNK.

Therefore, if schools really ARE doing this, everybody could make them really regret it by NOT flunking. Simple as that.

 

[drPheta]

Originally posted by ItsGavinC
Here's a good point: schools can't FLUNK you out if you don't FLUNK.

Therefore, if schools really ARE doing this, everybody could make them really regret it by NOT flunking. Simple as that.

Well, that wouldn't be so bad for the school. They just earned an extra couple hundred grand for the next year at the students' inconvenience (more crowded class, lower faculty student ratio, etc.)

The marginal cost to educate more students by that time would be minimal compared to the extra tuition and fees they were reaping in.

 

[3rdMolarRoller]

Good point gavin and very correct.

Only the student is responsible for failing out. NYU tries hard as hell to keep their students in the program. This year, for the first time, the dean heard this rumor and addressed our class. He assured us that this is not a policy of the school.

What they do to compensate for the additional students freshman year is take less AP students in the second year the the equation equals out...so no one loses (except for the AP students that didn't get admitted)

 

[Serge718]

I agree with you guys that it's the student that flunks out and not the school flunking the student. But how about this (assuming that they have a failure quota in mind) if the extra students they accept are weak students then they most likely will flunk out. Let's say a school excepts people who ahve 19+ on their DAT and 3.5 gpa. Now imagine you are a school who wants to make some money first year and then drop students. so what do you do? take some people with 3.2's and 17's on DAT and those who do not have a strong sci background. Yes they can still make it if htey try hard, it's just that their chances MAY be slighly worse of keeping up. Just an idea.

 

[Bickle]

Originally posted by Serge718
I agree with you guys that it's the student that flunks out and not the school flunking the student. But how about this (assuming that they have a failure quota in mind) if the extra students they accept are weak students then they most likely will flunk out. Let's say a school excepts people who ahve 19+ on their DAT and 3.5 gpa. Now imagine you are a school who wants to make some money first year and then drop students. so what do you do? take some people with 3.2's and 17's on DAT and those who do not have a strong sci background. Yes they can still make it if htey try hard, it's just that their chances MAY be slighly worse of keeping up. Just an idea.

Interesting theory.

But think of it this way. Schools want to sell their programs to potential students. How would it look if a school has a large attrition rate compared to a school that has zero attrition. Flunking students is not something a school hopes to do, its something they have to do when they have no other options. Otherwise, future applicants will see this and think twice about applying there.

 

[Serge718]

I agree with you a 100% that having a high attrition rate is horrible. Nevertheless that is the case with certain schools. As for my personal example, when i went to connecticut for an interview the guy there Dr. Thibodeau I think his name was told us that they take only 40 students per year. When asked what the atrition rate is, he said that they lose about 8 students by the end of 4 years. 8 students out of 40 is 20%. That is extremely high and i don't know how to expalin that high number.

 

[Bickle]

That is a high attrition rate. But dont you think that if Uconn could make it 0, they would?

My point is, I dont believe any school is out to flunk a certain quota of students. That would be a self destructive policy, in my opinion of course.

 

[arns51]

This is pure rumor, the same rumors going around on this forum are similar to what the person from UMKC heard.

If schools really really need the first year tuition from a couple people why dont they just raise everybodys tution a percent or something, and not have people talk $hit about how they supposedly flunk people out.

And, if they actually did purposely flunk out people, would they really be running around letting other schools know this? Doubt it.

 

[UBTom]

Originally posted by Mudduck
I think what jes1ca is referring to is actually admitting students, they pay their first-year tuition/expenses, then make it extremely difficult to pass a couple of classes. Survival of the fittest at its worst.

Does that make sense?? One would think a school would have the incentive to keep the students so that they can keep paying the tuition and fees for all four years. Not to mention gifts and endowments from graduates..

 

[ItsGavinC]

Originally posted by Serge718
I agree with you guys that it's the student that flunks out and not the school flunking the student. But how about this (assuming that they have a failure quota in mind) if the extra students they accept are weak students then they most likely will flunk out.

So you're saying people with LOW scores shouldn't be accepted? Hell, that thought's gotten be flamed many a time in these parts!

I'm in full agreeance, because if schools really ARE doing this, then certain students are screwing themselves over by taking out 40,50,60, maybe even 70k for a wasted year of school.

But, oddly enough, I think there ARE schools that accept students that shouldn't be in their respective programs. When it comes down to the final game, many schools will take warm bodies to fill the seats, even if those students don't meet their typical academic cut-offs.