There are no AA 28's, 29's, or 30's on the DAT

[denteng]

Just to put a lot of myths to rest, for good, here is a nifty document that breaks down DAT scores by a number of different metrics, including the count of people who received a particular DAT score. The most recent year is 2004, but various charts in this report go back as far as to 1988.

You can view the clearest breakdown of scores on pages 31 through 38 of the PDF (not of the document):

Document: http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/dat/dat_usermanual.pdf



For example, in 2004, there were following number of people obtained this for their academic averages: (page 38)

26:....7
27:....1
28:....0
29:....0
30:....0


In 2004, there were following total science scores: (page 36)

26:...15
27:....0
28:....0
29:....5
30:....2


In 2004, there were following PAT scores: (page 37)

26:....0
27:....1
28:....0
29:....0
30:....0


I am not saying a 30 AA is impossible. But what I am saying is that it has not occurred in 2004. This report shows scores over the past 8+ years, and it is fair to say that there are some established trends.

So I think this document, on the ADA website, puts a lot of speculation to rest. I know DAT scores has been a constant source of arguments on SDN, so thought I would help shed some light on the matter.

What I take away from this is that if only 7 people got an AA of 27, this makes me believe there are a LOT of liars on SDN, predents.com, etc. and are inflating their scores... but I already knew that. Just now there are official numbers to back it up.


Hope it helps!


webpage source: http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/dat/index.asp



.
__________________
Arizonia State University - Biomedical Engineering Class of 2007
GPA= 3.90+
Applying to PENN, Iowa, UW, UCLA, Arizonia, Howard

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[denteng]

I'm posting this most of all, because it's interesting.

You can look up your own DAT score and see how well you did in a number of different breakdowns (gender, ethnicity, etc).

Ps. also check out page 30. It shows how many people have taken the DAT. Apparently, four people have taken the DAT 9 times each. Two people repeated the DAT 8 times. I hope (and suspect) that these are test prep people working for Kaplan or someone! 🙂 🙂

 

[sejin8642]

Just to put a lot of myths to rest, for good, here is a nifty document that breaks down DAT scores by a number of different metrics, including the count of people who received a particular DAT score. The most recent year is 2004, but various charts in this report go back as far as to 1988.

You can view the clearest breakdown of scores on pages 31 through 38 of the PDF (not of the document):

Document: http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/dat/dat_usermanual.pdf



For example, in 2004, there were following number of people obtained this for their academic averages: (page 38)

26:....7
27:....1
28:....0
29:....0
30:....0


In 2004, there were following total science scores: (page 36)

26:...15
27:....0
28:....0
29:....5
30:....2


In 2004, there were following PAT scores: (page 37)

26:....0
27:....1
28:....0
29:....0
30:....0


I am not saying a 30 AA is impossible. But what I am saying is that it has not occurred in 2004. This report shows scores over the past 8+ years, and it is fair to say that there are some established trends.

So I think this document, on the ADA website, puts a lot of speculation to rest. I know DAT scores has been a constant source of arguments on SDN, so thought I would help shed some light on the matter.

What I take away from this is that if only 7 people got an AA of 27, this makes me believe there are a LOT of liars on SDN, predents.com, etc. and are inflating their scores... but I already knew that. Just now there are official numbers to back it up.


Hope it helps!


webpage source: http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/dat/index.asp



.
__________________
Arizonia State University - Biomedical Engineering Class of 2007
GPA= 3.90+
Applying to PENN, Iowa, UW, UCLA, Arizonia, Howard

Perfect scores like DAT 30 is possible but it's just extremely impossibly difficult to get perfect socres.

 

[Envision]

Perfect scores like DAT 30 is possible but it's just extremely impossibly difficult to get perfect socres.

wow, that was interesting to read. 😉

 

[abzirian]

Perfect scores like DAT 30 is possible but it's just extremely impossibly difficult to get perfect socres.

I doubt they give 30s to perfect scores - the dats aren't so difficult that no one is able to ace any one of the sections and every year theres a section (not talking about AA here) that no one recieves a 30 on.

 

[I'mFillingFine]

The problem with looking at the stats of how you did compared to everyone else, it can be a bit misleading. Since the percentile is out of EVERYONE who took the DAT, it will probably be a lot higher than compared to everyone applying or getting interviews.

I was super excited about my percentile until I joined SDN 😛

Just remember the rule about "thee who posts thyne stats hath confidence from thyne high scores" 😎

 

[denteng]

Perfect scores like DAT 30 is possible but it's just extremely impossibly difficult to get perfect socres.

That's exactly what I said in the OP, and the point of this thread.

However, in recent years according to this document, nobody has scored an AA of 28, 29, or 30.

 

[denteng]

wow, that was interesting to read. 😉

Glad you liked the post.

I am hoping the moderators will make this a sticky, considering how much time is spend discussing how standardized DAT scores are calculated, if perfect scores are possible, and what people's DAT scores are.

I found this article to be extremely informative.

 

[denteng]

The problem with looking at the stats of how you did compared to everyone else, it can be a bit misleading.

I'll add to your sentence. It is compared to how everyone did this year.

I was super excited about my percentile until I joined SDN 😛

That's the thing. Not nearly the number of people are getting these high scores as they say they are. People should look at these score breakdowns, and be reassured that their 20 or 21 is a very competitive score still.

 

[StephL26]

Awesome posting! It's so interesting to read this thread. And good job pointing some of these scores out. I've been so absorbed in my own world of getting a certain AA, and didn't realize how it compared to others. 😎

 

[issa]

there are many posts that sound fake. 99% of the posters who mention dat destroyer in their post are fake. think about it, they say dr romano and nancy are always busy. if that is true then why do they spend most of their time answering people's phone calls late at night or early in the morning. they got nothing else to do except making fake posts and trying to sell their product.............. enough for now.

 

[Fuji]

Here is a statement I found interesting:

"Fifteen of the 90 items on the PAT are reserved for pretesting new items. They are not included in the scoring of the test."

The trick is knowing which 15 are the new items!

 

[denteng]

Here is a statement I found interesting:

"Fifteen of the 90 items on the PAT are reserved for pretesting new items. They are not included in the scoring of the test."

Great find!

Nothing in this document really helps *that* much, other than letting us better understand how the DAT is run, and that helps puts one's mind at ease (which certainly helps people take better tests!).

One thing I found interesting, that nobody has mentioned yet, is on the last few pages (page 47 - page 50) there is a breakdown for the type of questions tested on each section. For example there are 13 cell related questions, 7 genetics questions, but only 4 evolution/ecology questions. This could be a good way to help give people an idea of where to place their emphasis of study on first.

 

[blue_moon01]

How about we make a bet here on SDN.
Let's take the DAT again and see if we can achieve the elusive 27, 28, 29 AA.
I propose ignoring the PAT completely and grind away for the academic part.


any takers? The one who get the highest AA wins only if it's at least 27. He/she can take home the money to pay for the treament of the stomach ulcers acquired while studying for the DAT.😀

I kid! I kid! I joke! I joke!
disclaimer: Blue_moon01 does not endorse the gambling industry in anyway shape or form unless she was paid to do so.

 

[dddsmack]

To me, this info is not new. It was one of the first items I sought out.

The thing that gets me is that the info is 2 years old now. Sure the norms could be similar, but they also can be very different.

The PAT part of those stats is where many things have changed. I know many people over 27 in that section alone in the last three years.

(I base this off of the other standardized exam I have taken, the ACS. One year a 61 is 99%ile and the next year it is 90%ile. So there is still a level uncertainty that we need to take into consideration. We don't know how often the DAT is changed and how many versions there are.)

 

[denteng]

Sure the norms could be similar, but they also can be very different.

(I base this off of the other standardized exam I have taken, the ACS. One year a 61 is 99%ile and the next year it is 90%ile. So there is still a level uncertainty that we need to take into consideration. We don't know how often the DAT is changed and how many versions there are.)

Taking into consideration that:

1) data is accessible from 1988 onwards (16 years) with very large sample sizes each year (4000+ test takers), and they have been extremely consistent (page 18)

2) The ADA employs some very proficient people a lot of money to manage the tests, so that they consistently achieve very similar distributions year in and year out. These are the folks who have post graduate degrees in education administration and have been administering tests like the DAT for a very long time.


I think it is very safe to say that the numbers year to year are very similar, and I expect 2005 and 2006 are close to mirror images of 2004. Other types of tests, such as this ASC you mention, are essentially that. Other tests (and not the DAT). Sure, it's still fruit, but that is an apples to oranges comparison.

You are welcome to interpret the data however you choose. The way I see it is that the yearly comparisons of the DAT test are the closest "oranges to oranges" comparison we're going to get. The ADA has been extremely consistent over 16 years, and the sample sizes are statistically large enough to be very accurate, so my take on this is there is little deviation (and a lot of people lying on SDN about their "stats").



.
__________________
Arizonia State University - Biomedical Engineering Class of 2007
GPA= 3.90+
Applying to PENN, Iowa, UW, UCLA, Arizonia, Howard

 

[catytweety]

there are many posts that sound fake. 99% of the posters who mention dat destroyer in their post are fake. think about it, they say dr romano and nancy are always busy. if that is true then why do they spend most of their time answering people's phone calls late at night or early in the morning. they got nothing else to do except making fake posts and trying to sell their product.............. enough for now.

You know what? I would not generalize. I bought DAT Destroyer and I think it really helped solidify some concepts that I would probably not have covered if it weren't for that book. I don't know about whether they are busy or not - all I can say is that Nancy and Dr. Romano were always willing to help.
From experience, I can say that book helped me out, as well as my study buddy 👍

Just thought I'd clear that up. I don't think you should assume.

 

[tinman831]

Who here has posted AA scores or TS scores 27 or higher? I haven't seen anyone do that. I have seen individual subject scores in that range and I know it's definitely possible.

 

[I'mFillingFine]

That's the thing. Not nearly the number of people are getting these high scores as they say they are.

Ah, but that's not exactly what I meant. I'm not accusing anyone of putting a false score on their profile. (Hopefully the few who do realize how rediculous it is on a silly forum.)

I mean that those who actually PUT their stats in their profile have good stats!

 

[DDSY]

Who here has posted AA scores or TS scores 27 or higher? I haven't seen anyone do that. I have seen individual subject scores in that range and I know it's definitely possible.

The people I've seen with ridiculously high stats have pretty high TS scores, in the range of 25 or 26 or higher. These same people have much lower AA scores.

 

[bruinpredent]

a grad student in my lab got a 28 on the exam (28AA), so its possible. also note...those stats are from 2004, and the scores keep going up...


also, the PAT from 2004 shows as there being no 30s, whereas we in fact know of an SDNer who scored a 30 on the PAT (our good pal building) in august, so that data is completely irrelevant and outdated

amsie, lifeisgood, uracil, busdent, etc...you guys can back me up on buildings accomplishment if you want, i think it deserves to be praised and acknowledged

 

[toothdr84]

Who here has posted AA scores or TS scores 27 or higher? I haven't seen anyone do that. I have seen individual subject scores in that range and I know it's definitely possible.

I got a 27 AA/29 TS/19 PAT. PAT didn't really match up with my other scores, but it's also a very different section. TS, QR, and RC are all academic sections. PAT is not academic. I'm sure there is a hand full of people with 26+ on PAT with below 20 on AA and TS.

 

[Revelde]

I got 30/30/30..😎

oh.. wait~!

Who cares??
mind your own business and do well on your interviews , then you will get in.

Is this supposed to be some kind of gossip? 🙄

C'mon.. people~!

 

[pine88]

I don't get it tho, what is the point of lying about your scores to a bunch of people who don't know you and all you are to them is words on a computer screen? It seems so pointless...

 

[dddsmack]

I personally am impressed with anything 20+. That is in most cases 90th percentile and up (RC exception). That means that only 10% of all applicants are equal to or greater than your scores.

Apply the info, If there are 10,000-16,000 applicants (which is a wide range, but we have heard these numbers by various sources) then you are in the top 1000-1600 apps. That means you are "statisically" going to get in to a bunch of schools. (there are more factors other than #'s)

I like those odds, and they only go up with higher scores. Besides the difference between a 24 and a 25 could be as little as 1-2 questions overall. So again I am impressed with anything 20+ AA.

Good Luck SDNers

 

[denteng]

I personally am impressed with anything 20+. That is in most cases 90th percentile and up (RC exception). That means that only 10% of all applicants are equal to or greater than your scores.

Apply the info, If there are 10,000-16,000 applicants (which is a wide range, but we have heard these numbers by various sources) then you are in the top 1000-1600 apps. That means you are "statisically" going to get in to a bunch of schools. (there are more factors other than #'s)

I like those odds, and they only go up with higher scores. Besides the difference between a 24 and a 25 could be as little as 1-2 questions overall. So again I am impressed with anything 20+ AA.

Very well said.

I think we all, at times, spend too much time fretting about scores. Dddsmack summarized everything rather nicely.

 

[SuperTrooper]

Good link.

I like page 30. In 2004, there were 4 people who retook the DAT 9 times!! 😱 What the hell were they thinking?!

Oh, I also like the part that compares men's performance to women's performance. Guys score higher in every aspect. Guys rule, girls drool!!😛 (jk)

I agree, this thread should be made a sticky.

 

[Streetwolf]

I got a 27 AA/29 TS/19 PAT. PAT didn't really match up with my other scores, but it's also a very different section. TS, QR, and RC are all academic sections. PAT is not academic. I'm sure there is a hand full of people with 26+ on PAT with below 20 on AA and TS.

I can believe that. I got the same except 26 AA. And you all can go ahead and not believe me. I wouldn't either.

 

[denteng]

I like page 30. In 2004, there were 4 people who retook the DAT 9 times!! 😱 What the hell were they thinking?!

I think (hope) they were people who wrote test prep material or taught DAT prep courses.

 

[t man]

I personally am impressed with anything 20+. That is in most cases 90th percentile and up (RC exception). That means that only 10% of all applicants are equal to or greater than your scores.

Apply the info, If there are 10,000-16,000 applicants (which is a wide range, but we have heard these numbers by various sources) then you are in the top 1000-1600 apps. That means you are "statisically" going to get in to a bunch of schools. (there are more factors other than #'s)

I like those odds, and they only go up with higher scores. Besides the difference between a 24 and a 25 could be as little as 1-2 questions overall. So again I am impressed with anything 20+ AA.

Good Luck SDNers

i agree 20+ is impressive, but i disagree with your numbers. i don't think people getting 14 AA are spendng aall that money on applying when they know they probably will be rejected. plus not all people who take the DAT are applying to dental school in general, so while you are in the upper percentile if you get such a score, you are prob not, say, top 10% among applicants. in fact, i think it's more like top 25%, which makes you less of a shoe-in applicant. hey, just check out my status, i've only gotten one invite to interview with a 21. i remember getting out of the test center with my score thinking, hell yes, i'm going to dental school. now... not as certain that's happening in the near future.

 

[shainapunim]

Even though it says 0%, it is probably rounded, like if it was 0.4% and there were a ton of people taking the test, some got those scores. That is still like 2 of every 200 people to take the test.

 

[shuna]

The questions is who needs 30 on the DAT? You can get in with muchhhhhhh lower than 30 everywhere... I wouldnt want such a high score- I would feel like a total ----.

Im very happy with my "low" score (which is nowhere near 30).

 

[DDSMAN2006]

Even though it says 0%, it is probably rounded, like if it was 0.4% and there were a ton of people taking the test, some got those scores. That is still like 2 of every 200 people to take the test.

Page 38 shows the number of people (not percentage) who scored the different AA averages. There is not any rounding going on with those numbers.

 

[dddsmack]

i agree 20+ is impressive, but i disagree with your numbers. i don't think people getting 14 AA are spendng aall that money on applying when they know they probably will be rejected. plus not all people who take the DAT are applying to dental school in general, so while you are in the upper percentile if you get such a score, you are prob not, say, top 10% among applicants. in fact, i think it's more like top 25%, which makes you less of a shoe-in applicant. hey, just check out my status, i've only gotten one invite to interview with a 21. i remember getting out of the test center with my score thinking, hell yes, i'm going to dental school. now... not as certain that's happening in the near future.

😕
Okay, this hurts my head to even try to think about. I am not a math guy. I don't claim to be by any means. I also am not here to argue or offend you in any way. I am trying to figure out in my head what you already know it seems.

With 17 being a national average for the DAT. (I have seen that published number many times, my school's website for one) Shouldn't 14 be the opposite equivalent to a 20? Meaning that scoring a 14 would be in the tenth percentile for most versions of the DAT based on the distributions? Okay having said that, you are right, they are smart enought to not apply. But that would only be ten percent of the applicants right? So you can safely say that you are in the top twenty percent of the total pool of apps. That still leaves you at high odds of getting in.(statistically only) And what if others with various scores didn't apply either for other reasons? How would that effect the rest of the pool and the percentiles? I guess what I am saying is that a norm is a norm and it isn't always the case but it normally is. So I think I am going to stick with my originally theory.

Feel free to point out any errors I have made in my thought process. For I am sure they are many. Like I said math makes my head hurt.

 

[DDSMAN2006]

😕
Okay, this hurts my head to even try to think about. I am not a math guy. I don't claim to be by any means. I also am not here to argue or offend you in any way. I am trying to figure out in my head what you already know it seems.

.....

Feel free to point out any errors I have made in my thought process. For I am sure they are many. Like I said math makes my head hurt.

Don't sweat it too much. Tman's logic is wrong. Think of it this way. You are given a percentile after taking the DAT. Let's say you get 95th percentile. Then only 5 people out of a hundred scored higher than your standardized score.

Regardless if, or if not, the people who scored low on the DAT apply there is still only 5 people per hundred with higher DAT scores than you. The percentiles do not magically shift, just because the lower scoring applicants do not apply. Capiche?

 

[dddsmack]

That is what I thought, I was trying to say it in QR terms. Which went over like a lead balloon.

Thanks. 👍

 

[DDSMAN2006]

Sometimes simple is better. Or as Albert Einstein said, "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

What Tman is saying is that a top DAT score does not mean you are a top overall applicant, as schools look at other things in addition to your DAT score.