RC and pre-clinical tech. correlation?

Started by moler
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The impression that I get from pre-clin grading is that its incredibly nit picky? Probably have to follow directions to the T. I feel that a lot of people get questions on RC wrong because they read too fast or glossed over an answer so they chose an answer choice which did not completely answer the question.

Might have to do with that?
 
JOoa0ky said:
The impression that I get from pre-clin grading is that its incredibly nit picky? Probably have to follow directions to the T. I feel that a lot of people get questions on RC wrong because they read too fast or glossed over an answer so they chose an answer choice which did not completely answer the question.

Might have to do with that?
Click to expand...


hm, good point. PAT fail.
 
moler said:
hm, good point. PAT fail.
Click to expand...

wow seriously. seems like that PAT section is a waste lol but then again so is AA its only 33% significant. QR is up there but seems like your GPAs have more of a tale to tell.

No wonder d-schools value a high GPA over a high DAT.
 
i'd say 60% is hardly a large enough correlation to consider RC scores a strong predictor. Also, if you look at table 8, you'll see that the numbers have jumped around from 2004-2008. RC scores were having the lowest correlations, while GPA and PAT had the highest. Either way, I don't believe there is anything that could be considered a strong predictor to how we'll do in the pre-clinical lab because there is just now way to gauge that.
 
757sharp said:
i'd say 60% is hardly a large enough correlation to consider RC scores a strong predictor. Also, if you look at table 8, you'll see that the numbers have jumped around from 2004-2008. RC scores were having the lowest correlations, while GPA and PAT had the highest. Either way, I don't believe there is anything that could be considered a strong predictor to how we'll do in the pre-clinical lab because there is just now way to gauge that.
Click to expand...

damn those statistically significant studies hahah nothing is 100% dude. 60% is pretty damn high, but i guess delusion is the norm on this forum regarding stats. 🙂
 
757sharp said:
i'd say 60% is hardly a large enough correlation to consider RC scores a strong predictor. Also, if you look at table 8, you'll see that the numbers have jumped around from 2004-2008. RC scores were having the lowest correlations, while GPA and PAT had the highest. Either way, I don't believe there is anything that could be considered a strong predictor to how we'll do in the pre-clinical lab because there is just now way to gauge that.
Click to expand...

Or we could look at this from a completely different angle.

The DAT is administered by the ADA.
The study is conducted by the ADA.

What is the study trying to validated? The DAT.
In other words... its trying to prove to the world that there is worth in using the DAT as a gauge for comparing applicants. So... please pay that $300+ test taking fee :laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Detroit Mercy Dental Impressions Day and Pre-dental day
Replies
6
Views
2K
memah.elhadi
M
dentaldivaa
PRE-DENTAL CONFERENCE
Replies
2
Views
2K
dentaldivaa
dentaldivaa
M
BS/DDS pre dental consultant wanted
Replies
0
Views
606
monkey17
M
B
Texas Tech University-El Paso Pre-Dental Weekend!
Replies
0
Views
2K
Betsaida.Delgado
B
S
Maybe Pre-Dents Can Benefit from This Pre-Med Thread
Replies
4
Views
2K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12