The Numbers Game cont...

[dsony2284]

---

Members do not see this ad.

It is not fictitious to think that someone with just the science pre reqs (minimum) and a one or two upper level courses in science gets accepted over someone who has majored in science with a plethora of upper level science courses.
Numbers for some reason mean a lot more to many dental schools. I have a friend who works at a BU laboratory; he is interested in applying next cycle to the dental school. He tells me stories of students from the dental school who do not know simple reactions and even the meaning of certain basic terms like EXOTHERMIC!!!! I am serious here; I did not make this up.

Makes me think how can schools go according to numbers. I am going to present a case I know of between two of my friends. One is a huge science buff; the other a poli sci major in undergrad but did a post bacc for prereqs. Both applied to the same schools and have similar DAT scores and number of LORs / extra cirics.
One has a 4.0 in his pre reqs with no real upper level coursework besides a biochem class and another has a 2.8 in his pre reqs but minored in sociology, majored in biology, taken immunology, comp anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology, cellular molecular bio, embryology, genetics, herpetology, virology, epidemiology, pharmacology and histology etc (most of these completed after graduating, all upper level sciences in addition to his/her major requirements from his 4-year university and pre-reqs physics, gen chem, orgo bio etc).

The 4.0 student has had an acceptance and 2 other interviews, at the same schools, the 2.8 student has had 0 interviews and no acceptance yet. Something is not right with the world, in my mind. I know both people, if anything I feel my friend who is a 2.8 deserves to be in dental school. Oh, and both attended the same undergrad university, so that cant come into play.

If I were on admissions, I would pick the 2.8 students for admissions based on his/her science BACKGROUND. But numbers do matter its quite ridiculous in this sense. Obviously DAT scores, extra cirrics, LORs etc also come into play here. But, if all of these other aspects were 'even' (depends on what you may think of as even) between the two candidates, I still would take the 2.8 student for admissions. This is not the case with all schools obviously.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Danny0230]

If a student can only pull a 2.8 in undergrad with an average of probably 16 credits per semester, why should adcoms think he can handle taking 30 credits per semester of much harder material. Makes perfect sense to me why 2.8's don't get accepted often.

 

[dsony2284]

Well, wouldnt it be easier for someone who has all that science knowledge to take those similar classes again in dental school because they already have had experience in them? And apply that knowledge in various other dental school courses? As opposed to someone who is going to be relatively new to these rather difficult courses and their information in dental school.

 

[sarah_bellum]

In my experience, science coursework is no harder than any other coursework. The DAT is the unbiased measure of their comparative readiness. If their DAT science scores are similar, then they're probably not too far apart in their science abilities.

 

[building]

You could probably try to argue that the person with a 2.8 will be able to handle some the familiar course work, but why would, as you said, ADCOMs pick the 2.8 student over the 4.0 student? The GPA difference is pretty substantial and the 2.8 student has continually proven that he manages under a B average, whereas the 4.0 student has proven that even though he only has some of the minimum requirements done he/she has the potential to be much more successful, gpa-wise. Now we can argue all day if GPA correlates to success as a professional, but when it come down to it, even though the 2.8 student has already taken a broad spectrum of courses he/she has not proven that they have mastered the material.

Dental schools don't necessarily need or want students that have already taken a majority of the courses they offer, they just want their students to be at a particular academic standard and level, hence the establishment of pre-reqs.

 

[NewMexDent]

As far as dental school admissions seem to go you need to be able to stick out quantitatively (gpa, DAT) before you can stick out qualitatively (ec, LOR, upper-division courses).

In this case, your 2.8 GPA friend probably didn't stick out quantitatively and thus the other qualities of his application were probably not even considered. There are so many applicants to dental school these days that ADCOMS can't look at all the details of each applicants file.

A 2.8 GPA, regardless of the area of study, is not all that hard to obtain. Your friend probably should have been more focused on doing well in fewer courses, than doing below a B average in a lot of courses.

 

[Resonance]

It is not fictitious to think that someone with just the science pre reqs (minimum) and a one or two upper level courses in science gets accepted over someone who has majored in science with a plethora of upper level science courses.
Numbers for some reason mean a lot more to many dental schools. I have a friend who works at a BU laboratory; he is interested in applying next cycle to the dental school. He tells me stories of students from the dental school who do not know simple reactions and even the meaning of certain basic terms like EXOTHERMIC!!!! I am serious here; I did not make this up.

Makes me think how can schools go according to numbers. I am going to present a case I know of between two of my friends. One is a huge science buff; the other a poli sci major in undergrad but did a post bacc for prereqs. Both applied to the same schools and have similar DAT scores and number of LORs / extra cirics.
One has a 4.0 in his pre reqs with no real upper level coursework besides a biochem class and another has a 2.8 in his pre reqs but minored in sociology, majored in biology, taken immunology, comp anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology, cellular molecular bio, embryology, genetics, herpetology, virology, epidemiology, pharmacology and histology etc (most of these completed after graduating, all upper level sciences in addition to his/her major requirements from his 4-year university and pre-reqs physics, gen chem, orgo bio etc).

The 4.0 student has had an acceptance and 2 other interviews, at the same schools, the 2.8 student has had 0 interviews and no acceptance yet. Something is not right with the world, in my mind. I know both people, if anything I feel my friend who is a 2.8 deserves to be in dental school. Oh, and both attended the same undergrad university, so that cant come into play.

If I were on admissions, I would pick the 2.8 students for admissions based on his/her science BACKGROUND. But numbers do matter its quite ridiculous in this sense. Obviously DAT scores, extra cirrics, LORs etc also come into play here. But, if all of these other aspects were 'even' (depends on what you may think of as even) between the two candidates, I still would take the 2.8 student for admissions. This is not the case with all schools obviously.

What are your thoughts?

What was the 2.8's GPA in those upper-division courses and what were the DAT scores?
I think it is important to remember that dental schools exist on a very tight budget so if they lose 4 years of tuition because someone can not make the grade there is no way to recover that income from another source. The data shows that kids with high undergrad GPAs are more likely to graduate from dental school and pass their boards than those with low undergrad GPAs.

 

[TheWiredNerv]

It is not fictitious to think that someone with just the science pre reqs (minimum) and a one or two upper level courses in science gets accepted over someone who has majored in science with a plethora of upper level science courses.
Numbers for some reason mean a lot more to many dental schools. I have a friend who works at a BU laboratory; he is interested in applying next cycle to the dental school. He tells me stories of students from the dental school who do not know simple reactions and even the meaning of certain basic terms like EXOTHERMIC!!!! I am serious here; I did not make this up.

Makes me think how can schools go according to numbers. I am going to present a case I know of between two of my friends. One is a huge science buff; the other a poli sci major in undergrad but did a post bacc for prereqs. Both applied to the same schools and have similar DAT scores and number of LORs / extra cirics.
One has a 4.0 in his pre reqs with no real upper level coursework besides a biochem class and another has a 2.8 in his pre reqs but minored in sociology, majored in biology, taken immunology, comp anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology, cellular molecular bio, embryology, genetics, herpetology, virology, epidemiology, pharmacology and histology etc (most of these completed after graduating, all upper level sciences in addition to his/her major requirements from his 4-year university and pre-reqs physics, gen chem, orgo bio etc).

The 4.0 student has had an acceptance and 2 other interviews, at the same schools, the 2.8 student has had 0 interviews and no acceptance yet. Something is not right with the world, in my mind. I know both people, if anything I feel my friend who is a 2.8 deserves to be in dental school. Oh, and both attended the same undergrad university, so that cant come into play.

If I were on admissions, I would pick the 2.8 students for admissions based on his/her science BACKGROUND. But numbers do matter its quite ridiculous in this sense. Obviously DAT scores, extra cirrics, LORs etc also come into play here. But, if all of these other aspects were 'even' (depends on what you may think of as even) between the two candidates, I still would take the 2.8 student for admissions. This is not the case with all schools obviously.

What are your thoughts?

I think numbers aren't as important as people make them out to be. They are a crucial part of the applicantion but not the most crucial IMO. However, wouldn't adcoms take the person who has a 3.5+ over the 2.8 student if all other things were equal?

Just because you have a lot of background doesn't automatically entitle you over others who worked hard (or are naturally brilliant) for their grades.

 

[TubaFish]

Just because you have a lot of background doesn't automatically entitle you over others who worked hard (or are naturally brilliant) for their grades.

I agree, if simply taking the greatest number of science courses gained one acceptance to D-school, I'm sure the avg. pre-dent GPA (and work ethic for that matter) would drop through the floor as everyone and their mom simply loaded up with as many science courses as possible and simply slid by with C's, D's, and F's.

 

[bluejellybelly]

The 4.0 poly-sci guy looks well-rounded in comparison because he has success in a variety of courses even though his studies in the relative courses are minimal. While the 2.8 guy has more exposure in the sciences, he doesn't demonstrate the same line of aptitude. I guess GPA counts for something, right?

 

[bluejellybelly]

Well, if you asked me about a 4.0 poly sci major competing against a 3.4 biochemistry major, then there's an interesting comparison! I guess one of the other posters was right, the difference in GPA is substantial!

 

[small]

I agree, BIG GPA difference. 4.0 shows a commitment to working hard as well as aptitude in the chosen field, and from what I have heard commitment seems to be one of the biggest factors in dental school. Not many people talk about the material being too hard, just the difficulties/stress constant studying and testing poses. The 2.8 person just does not show that same level of commitment. Having taken many of those same classes, I see no reason they could not get >3.0 (especially given the overlap in so many of those classes), and I am sure ADCOMS would agree. Like someone else said, though, 3.5 biochem vs. 4.0 polysci, well, that is a different story!