- Joined
- Jun 1, 2013
- Messages
- 291
- Reaction score
- 81
Top choices: UOP, UW, UCLA, Oregon. I know 20 isn't that bad of a score, but my TS was 18. I got 18 on both the gen chem and organic section, and a 20 on the biology. What do you guys think?
Should I retake the DAT if I got a 20 if I want to get into these schools?
- Thread starter youraverageasia
- Start date
- Joined
- May 8, 2014
- Messages
- 141
- Reaction score
- 44
I think it depends on your GPA.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 89
You've started numerous similar threads in the past (one of which you stated you had a 22 DAT, now it's back to 20..?) and you've been told that, with your oGPA of 3.2 and sGPA under 3.0, you are unlikely to be considered at UW, your state school. Even if you had re-taken the DAT and scored a 22 as was your goal, you still would have been a long shot. UOP is even less likely. UCLA no chance. Oregon's the only one that might look at you, but they have a relatively small class size, high average GPA, and your ECs would have to be spectacular.
It's great to be optimistic and to have dreams, but it sounds like you're not aware of the reality of your situation. Apply to the above schools if you wish, but people have also told you that private schools are a more likely option and even those will likely require you to do an SMP to be competitive.
Are you just waiting for somebody to tell you what you hear? Have you improved your app? What were the results of your DAT re-take? Did you apply to and were you admitted to an SMP?
It's great to be optimistic and to have dreams, but it sounds like you're not aware of the reality of your situation. Apply to the above schools if you wish, but people have also told you that private schools are a more likely option and even those will likely require you to do an SMP to be competitive.
Are you just waiting for somebody to tell you what you hear? Have you improved your app? What were the results of your DAT re-take? Did you apply to and were you admitted to an SMP?
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
- Messages
- 262
- Reaction score
- 151
At the schools you listed and based upon the limited info you provided you have little to no shot. If you have a high GPA you might have a chance at those schools but with a TS of 18 you should definitely consider applying to more programs.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Messages
- 8,521
- Reaction score
- 2,797
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 89
As mentioned by others on that thread, it's a flawed analysis and it's not possible to derive useful data with what's given. So while, anecdotally, one may say that a re-take is risky due to variance and other factors at play, it's all conjecture. I would hope nobody bases a re-take decision based on the information that's presented there.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Messages
- 8,521
- Reaction score
- 2,797
You are probably right. Those white coated clowns at the ADA have no idea what they are talking about, not to mention that they are not aware than the new generation of applicants have figured out how to beat the Bell Curve.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 89
There isn't anybody on SDN who isn't appreciative of your work, Doc. You're an institution and we are all lucky to have you. However, why do you feel it's necessary to always be armed with a sarcastic retort? You're here to offer advice and to assist others, just as I am. You know as well as I do that if anybody here were to decide against a re-take based on the thread you offered, you'd have done them a great disservice.
Ignoring the fact that original source is no longer available, you're setting up a straw man when you suggest that the ADA is the be-all, end-all. Where it originates from is quite irrelevant, even had they labeled the document Re-Taking the DAT? Think Twice, which I find quite unlikely.
You are a dentist, not a statistician. Neither am I a statistician and if this were a dental related topic, I'd be more than happy to defer to you. Fortunately, only a passing knowledge of stats, along with a serving of common sense, is needed to see that no meaningful conclusion can be extracted from the little data made available in your spreadsheet. Not only do you confound your dependent and independent variables, you also disregard selection bias. The data itself is fine, but what you make of the data is quite a leap. Which isn't to that your verdict is necessarily incorrect, but neither is it correct, based on the data available, and it doesn't amount to much more than statistical noise.
The fact that you didn't make any attempt to defend the validity of your conclusion, either here or in the other post, suggests to me that you're aware of the shortcomings of your analysis. If true, I wonder why you would offer it again as an answer to somebody who wonders if they should re-take.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Messages
- 8,521
- Reaction score
- 2,797
If you were interested in the source you have found it rather easily. The original post was simply intended to provide statistical basis on retakes. If you are unhappy with the way the information was presented, you will need to direct your complaints to the ADA.
http://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Education and Careers/Files/dat_users_manual.ashx
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 89
Thanks for grabbing the most non-essential portion of my response and taking it out of context. I had no interest in the source, I merely stated the original source (as provided by you) was no longer available and that I doubted the ADA was attempting to warn prospective re-takers, which you implied.
However, thank you for taking the time to provide a new link. I took a look at it and, like data has a tendency of being, it was quite benign. However, data when wielded inappropriately, at it is in this instance, is dangerous. Besides which, I also stated that source was irrelevant. Finally, I stated that I had no problem with the data, only with your conclusion.
If you'd like to maintain that your conclusion is a sound one, I'd love to hear your reasoning. If you're going to claim that you were presenting an unbiased view of the facts and allowing the reader to reach his own verdict, then you'd be misstating your intent. You can argue semantics all you want, but you are clearly suggesting that somebody who re-takes the test is, more likely than not, due to experience a drop in their score. No reasonable reader who stumbles upon your original post would think otherwise.
To make the claim you did is grossly irresponsible, especially when taking into account that a significant number of people will opt to re-take the exam. Of all people on here, you should know better. If however, you're trying to refute me because you insist on getting the last word in, so be it. I'll gladly let it go. To be frank, all I care about is making sure no part of anybody's decision on whether or not to re-take is influenced by an inaccurate assertion.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2013
- Messages
- 774
- Reaction score
- 938
Similar threads
