This is going to be long...
I think some of you missed the part about the GPA adjustment example being a part of an overall formula. Of course, to our conditioned minds a 4.0 dumping to a 2.whatever is ridiculous. In the past, I know some schools used rigid mathematical equations for their applicants, similar to the UNLV one they still use. I think it's stupid. Depending on how schools choose to do it, there were aggressive factors like this. If a local scoring system is/was used, GPA is just a number. It's just data. They don't have to treat a 4.0 as a 4.0 at that point. Another example, ranking based on a total score of 0 to 100 based on 10 criteria each worth 10 points. Where a 2.99 would get 0 points, (3.0 - 3.09) gets 1 point, 3.1 - 3.19 gets 2 points, and on. It's their system, so whatever. Maybe they use gold star stickers on a poster board and whoever has the most stars gains acceptance. Sometimes it feels like someone is just throwing darts at a list of names in those adcom meetings.
Another potential option is the College Factor. Assign a level to individual or groups of schools and either apply a multiplying factor to GPAs of certain levels (e.g., multiple group 2 schools by .98 and group 1 schools by 1.02), or even add a specified number to certain levels (e.g., add .15 to all group 1 schools). If a specific school's admissions department flat out decides that CCs are easy, they could easily reduce all of them before reviewing applications. And all we could do is whine about it.
Sounds complex. That's why it's built into the software for them to use if they choose. If they want to use this scoring system or college factor stuff, they click some boxes and drop-down menus and go to town and tweak it how they want. Who uses these local scoring systems any more? I don't know. I'd like to think they're all going to the web portal and not using the stand-alone client with all the complex features anyway. My opinion is that schools are going away from this formula business as well as the CC comparison. You will always find the snobby admissions guy who will take the CC vs university argument to the grave. Tough luck. I think if anything, some schools are familiar with common 'trouble' or 'hard' schools by now. Maybe they get a good 80-100 applications a year from Big Dong University down the street and they know they inflate grades and that admitted students in the past performed poorly. All that takes is a glance at the application and a mental note, not a formula. But overall, I think there's a transition in admissions and dental education in general. If you dig deep enough online, you can find presentations and training material from conferences or from schools that talk about these things. How they all want to be more holistic in their admissions. I'm sure some of it is just lip service. Maybe not. That's where this cover sheet came into play. That was new last cycle. In one survey, 78% of of responding schools report they stopped the CC comparison thing and look more at overall performance rather than the school the applicants attended as they go to a more holistic admissions process. 95.5% said they have no conclusive evidence that students with CC credits perform differently, although 90% perceive CC courses as less vigorous.
If you have to do CC, don't suck it up. Take upper-divisions after to prove ability and don't suck up your sciences sections on DAT. Formula or not, the overall perception is that CC isn't as difficult and that GPAs are pretty much always inflated at the CC level (a comment from the same survey).
