Undergrad school really doesnt make a difference??

[cdmOMR]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Ok, Im sure this has been mulled over numerous times, but its kinda of a hard topic to search.

From what Ive read on here in the past, you better off with a 3.8 GPA from Podunk College rather than say a 3.3 from an Ivy League school (probably a little exaggerated, but you get the point). Im really having a hard time coming to terms with that fact that the admissions people barely pay any attention to where you went for you undergrad. I mean, did I waste $35k/year going to a private university when really my goal is to get into dental school? Are all colleges equally difficult? It just seems to be the most overlooked aspect, Ive even seen people get flammed on here for bringing up the subject. If someone could please shed some light for me, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. 🙂

Chris

**This question is not for particularly me or my stats, rather a general question**

 

[ftown_trojan]

It doesn't matter from your standpoint. All colleges are different in terms of difficulty and ADCOMs have a pretty aware of which ones are harder. Just get the best GPA you can and thats about all you can do!

 

[bionerd]

that's what the DAT is for man...if you got 23 and had 3.8 from Podunk College vs. someone who got 20 and had 3.3 from Ivy League, the ADCOMS will realize that you're truly smarter than the kid from Ivy League. In this case, I would think that undergrad school wouldn't matter. On the other hand, if you got 3.8 GPA from Podunk but got like a 17/18...then they question whether they should be wowed at your GPA...common sense to me 😀

 

[cdmOMR]

that's what the DAT is for man...if you got 23 and had 3.8 from Podunk College vs. someone who got 20 and had 3.3 from Ivy League, the ADCOMS will realize that you're truly smarter than the kid from Ivy League. In this case, I would think that undergrad school wouldn't matter. On the other hand, if you got 3.8 GPA from Podunk but got like a 17/18...then they question whether they should be wowed at your GPA...common sense to me 😀

Ah yea that makes sense...instead of worrying about one college being better than another they just compare the DAT's...I guess thats the whole point of Standardized tests...I guess everyone asks stupid questions.

 

[Fuji]

Are all colleges equally difficult?

Definitely, definitely not. Going to an Ivy doesn't necessarily mean you had a tougher load, however, considering Harvard, for one, has had to crack down on grade inflation in the recent past. Admissions committees are amazingly astute when it comes to which schools, even classes in particular, are more likely to spew out 4.0's versus those that make their students work for a B.

 

[bionerd]

Definitely, definitely not. Going to an Ivy doesn't necessarily mean you had a tougher load, however, considering Harvard, for one, has had to crack down on grade inflation in the recent past. Admissions committees are amazingly astute when it comes to which schools, even classes in particular, are more likely to spew out 4.0's versus those that make their students work for a B.

BIO H101 - Biology of the Hair?

 

[jkh1886]

whatever. I've taken classes at multiple schools. My main undergrad was a top 20 private school. The others were top 10 public, top 40 overall. The top 20 school forced me to think like hell, and getting the grades were NOT a breeze. At the public schools, I didn't have to break a sweat [or even study] to get 4.0's. All of my friends who have been to top AND lower ranked schools [so far] agree.

Point being, don't think you're smarter than a student from a top school with a lower gpa just cuz you have a higher gpa from a noname school. The correlation's just not there. Before you listen to critiques of these schools, it would help to note if that person actually has been to both top and lower ranked schools.

The dat's a predictor of dental school success, not smartness. the test is very fact-based. The quality schools are looking for may be those who can absorb more information, not those who are necessarily the best thinkers. [as opposed to the mcat, which is predominantly reasoning-based, not fact based. the fact based questions on that test are considered gimme's for most students there.]

Plus, the admissions committee have MANY contraints to work around. They all want top students. but there are many statistics they have to work around. they need to have 1) representation from many undergrad institutions. if they want at least 50 undergrad institutions represented, they can't have 50 top 10 schools. They want 2) a high avg gpa. 3) high dat's 4) etc, etc.

if they want representation from duke, and hte only duke applicant has a 3.0, they'll take the 3.0. they'll just balance it out with all the 3.9's out there.

you just have to determine which kind of applicant you are: big name school with high/low gpa, high gpa from no name school, minority, etc.

 

[reapply2007]

Some schools might not offer the same courses. For example - anatomy with cadaver lab, biochemistry, neurology, pathology. Some courses pretty much require a college of medicine nearby so if you go to podunk you might not get exposure in undergrad.

 

[dentaldentist]

Ok, Im sure this has been mulled over numerous times, but its kinda of a hard topic to search.

From what Ive read on here in the past, you better off with a 3.8 GPA from Podunk College rather than say a 3.3 from an Ivy League school (probably a little exaggerated, but you get the point). Im really having a hard time coming to terms with that fact that the admissions people barely pay any attention to where you went for you undergrad. I mean, did I waste $35k/year going to a private university when really my goal is to get into dental school? Are all colleges equally difficult? It just seems to be the most overlooked aspect, Ive even seen people get flammed on here for bringing up the subject. If someone could please shed some light for me, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. 🙂

Chris

**This question is not for particularly me or my stats, rather a general question**

This is definitly a difficult thing for schools to compare. Its not really possible to say that a certain GPA at one school is worth another GPA at another school. Theres no easy way to do that. Standardized tests like the DAT do help give an idea, but they do not tell the whole story of course. However, I would strongly encourage anyone deciding between ramdon university and a top 20 school to take the difficult road and challenge yourself. Admissions committees do look at your undergrad institution and if you went to a school like Stanford, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Princeton or similar you definitly do get some bonus points. Does it make up for having a low GPA? Yes, somewhat, but it depends on how low and what classes you took. I definitly agree that top 20 schools are more difficult than your average University. I took the majority of my classes from a top 20 school, but did take a couple of high level science classes from a highly state public school and found it much easier. Not to brag, but I had over a 100% in the science classes I took at the state school while at the same time I struggled to maintain a B+ average at my university. I don't think I was necessarily smarter than the students at the state school, but I was more challenged at the top 20 school and was forced to learn to work harder so when I put the same level of work in at the state school I had no problem aceing the tests. Part of me wished I had gone to the state school so I might have graduated with a 3.8 - 3.9 GPA rather than a much lesser GPA from a top school, but in the end the work ethic and knowledge I gained at the higher ranking school has really helped me so far in Dental School (plus I loved my undergrad so I'll keep my 3.2).

 

[Mackchops]

whatever. I've taken classes at multiple schools. My main undergrad was a top 20 private school. The others were top 10 public, top 40 overall. The top 20 school forced me to think like hell, and getting the grades were NOT a breeze. At the public schools, I didn't have to break a sweat [or even study] to get 4.0's. All of my friends who have been to top AND lower ranked schools [so far] agree.

Point being, don't think you're smarter than a student from a top school with a lower gpa just cuz you have a higher gpa from a noname school. The correlation's just not there. Before you listen to critiques of these schools, it would help to note if that person actually has been to both top and lower ranked schools.

The dat's a predictor of dental school success, not smartness. the test is very fact-based. The quality schools are looking for may be those who can absorb more information, not those who are necessarily the best thinkers. [as opposed to the mcat, which is predominantly reasoning-based, not fact based. the fact based questions on that test are considered gimme's for most students there.]

Plus, the admissions committee have MANY contraints to work around. They all want top students. but there are many statistics they have to work around. they need to have 1) representation from many undergrad institutions. if they want at least 50 undergrad institutions represented, they can't have 50 top 10 schools. They want 2) a high avg gpa. 3) high dat's 4) etc, etc.

if they want representation from duke, and hte only duke applicant has a 3.0, they'll take the 3.0. they'll just balance it out with all the 3.9's out there.

you just have to determine which kind of applicant you are: big name school with high/low gpa, high gpa from no name school, minority, etc.

This is brought up from time to time on here and I must say that your assessment was the most thoughtful and articulate I've read. Thanks for sharing!

 

[shainapunim]

hahahaa, I hope my 3.0 from Duke can get me in! I have another year so hopefully I can get it up to a 3.2 or so. It is pretty tough being at a school with a bunch of really smart hard working students who study constantly. In all the science classes and premed prereqs the classes are curved so that the average is a B-/C+ and you must score a standard deviation above the mean to be in the A range. A standard deviation above the average of some of the smartest/hardest working students in the country? Very difficult! Its definitly taken into consideration, but I still have to get my GPA up if I want to get in and the fact that I did well on the DAT will help.

 

[MrZ123]

Undergrad school matters, period. People would not compete to get into good undergrad institutions if grad schools and businesses did not look at what school you went to.

 

[jkh1886]

hahahaa, I hope my 3.0 from Duke can get me in! I have another year so hopefully I can get it up to a 3.2 or so. It is pretty tough being at a school with a bunch of really smart hard working students who study constantly. In all the science classes and premed prereqs the classes are curved so that the average is a B-/C+ and you must score a standard deviation above the mean to be in the A range. A standard deviation above the average of some of the smartest/hardest working students in the country? Very difficult! Its definitly taken into consideration, but I still have to get my GPA up if I want to get in and the fact that I did well on the DAT will help.

yea, you were the example I was thinking of. I saw your stats somewhere on here before.

a friend of mine from high school who wasn't ranked as high went to a public school. In her bio class, the class was curved such that her 68/100 raw score became an A. So, the indication was that she didn't know jack and still got an A.

I got a 91/100 raw score at princeton on hard-ass tests, and it was curved to a B+. And I thought that it was the most eff'ed up thing ever. I was so pissed. [Anyway, I ended up with a 100th percentile on Dat Bio, so that cleared up some things.]

One thing about top schools..... they make those science/math classes brutal!!!! They have to find a way to discriminate among those top, top students so that they can draw an accurate curve!

State schools often post copies of their exams on a bulletin, and when I look at their tests, they're so incredibly easy and straight-forward. So don't dip on low gpa's from top schools.

Keep in mind also that schools like Harvard, Princeton, Yale have mostly valedictorians and such. A good 80% of their students were in the top 10 of their high school class. Virtually none of their students were below the bottom 30% of their class. The system makes it that some of those valedictorians WILL end up at the bottom of the IVY class. It's inevitable. A 3.0 at Cornell is likely to be valedictorian at some point in his life. Those with high gpa's at no name schools should take it as a blessing that they're able to enter a professional field without comparable, prior academic excellence. The system promotes giving opportunities to potential late-bloomers, which is an excellent thing. Be cautious, however, of late-bloomer taking that for granted and claiming that they're now superior.

 

[drpduck]

I generally think schools are on average the same. Sure, there will be schools that are easier, and those that are harder, but on average, an A is an A.

I went to a state school for Undergrad and didn't do fantastic (only 3.05 cum average,however that was mainly due to being immature and not studying) while I went to a well known private top ranked school for grad school and I've done much better.

Overall, I didn't find any difference in the quality of education of the two schools, but rather I put more effort into the latter and was rewarded with better grades.

I think the whole name thing is way over inflated, the only difference I've seen in the two schools is the private school is more expensive and thus has more resources from having more $$$ (research etc.), but their overall classroom teaching was not any more/less challenging then my undergrad state school.

 

[ddsjymaeng]

I think top state schools are tough compared to top private schools...
maybe not

 

[OSUDDS]

nope. unless youre in cali.

 

[madchemist2006]

Keep in mind also that schools like Harvard, Princeton, Yale have mostly valedictorians and such. A good 80% of their students were in the top 10 of their high school class. Virtually none of their students were below the bottom 30% of their class. The system makes it that some of those valedictorians WILL end up at the bottom of the IVY class. It's inevitable. A 3.0 at Cornell is likely to be valedictorian at some point in his life. Those with high gpa's at no name schools should take it as a blessing that they're able to enter a professional field without comparable, prior academic excellence. The system promotes giving opportunities to potential late-bloomers, which is an excellent thing. Be cautious, however, of late-bloomer taking that for granted and claiming that they're now superior.[/QUOTE]

 

[Yellow Snow]

School name counts but not for much. I no longer have the e-mail but I have posted it on here before. Basically, there is an equation part of which includes multiplying your gpa by a number assigned to your school by a national entity (the arizona adcom said that all dental schools use this same entity's ranking). She indicated that the value really didn't differ much across well known 4-year universities but that some community colleges had significantly lower values. A nearly perfect gpa will make up for having a lower school value in most situations.

Also, when I was an undergrad I studied some at an Ivy, a non-ivy prestigous private and finally graduated from a state university. I felt it was just as hard to get the "A" at the state university as it was at the well known privates. It did seem like the B was quite a bit easier at the state school though.

 

[cdmOMR]

Lol, well so far Ive gotta about every different answer so far from yes, to no, to yes but not much, to kinda. Is there a true answer, is it more complicated than yes or no.

I have a feeling that the times the adcoms pay more attention to the school attended is when there is a desparity in GPA and DAT scores. Those who are in the upper crust of both catagories obviously will be accepted by many schools (without much look at their undergrad school). Those students with low DAT scores and low GPA, probably wont get much of a second look in the first place, once again not making the undergrad school as important in the decision making. But like I said before, those with high DAT's and lower GPA's (and vise versa) will probably get a deeper look into the school they attended. This is just my theory from what ive read so far. Anyone disagree?

 

[Ething]

Listen...I know my DAT scores don't really match up with my GPA but I know plenty of people at my school (a state school that is not top ranked) who have GPAs of 3.4, 3.5 and they landed 22s, 23s and even a 25 on the DATs (and many of these people couldn't even afford the Kaplan course). I don't think that private schools are necessarily harder. I have friends who took organic chem at great private schools the same time that I was taking it and their tests were pretty similar to mine in terms of difficulty. Of course, there is probably a more notable difference when you are dealing with an ivy league caliber school. The point is, I believe that my school prepared me for graduate school, at least in terms of the sciences. There was not one topic in the DAT sciences that I had not seen or learned in my undergraduate science courses. Also, with the cost of private school tuition these days going through the roof, you can end up with a large percentage of very intelligent people at public schools simply because they want to save some dough (as was the case for me). As a result, the curves are not as large all the time as some people think. I worked very hard in undergrad at my school and I was accepted to some great universities after high school (albeit no ivy leagues).

 

[INFNITE]

A 3.0 at Cornell is likely to be valedictorian at some point in his life.

[/QUOTE]

true, I graduated #2 in my HS class and I had a 3.35 in Cornell

 

[TechKUSA]

ive also been to a top school and a lower school, and getting good grades is much harder at a top school.

All I will say is those people that have 3.7+ gpas but cant break 20s on the DAT, i'm sorry, but i dont find the 3.7 that impressive. Getting a 20 on the DAT if you study hard is not that difficult at least on the bio/chem/orgo parts.

 

[HermeytheElf]

I generally think schools are on average the same. Sure, there will be schools that are easier, and those that are harder, but on average, an A is an A.

I went to a state school for Undergrad and didn't do fantastic (only 3.05 cum average,however that was mainly due to being immature and not studying) while I went to a well known private top ranked school for grad school and I've done much better.

Overall, I didn't find any difference in the quality of education of the two schools, but rather I put more effort into the latter and was rewarded with better grades.

I think the whole name thing is way over inflated, the only difference I've seen in the two schools is the private school is more expensive and thus has more resources from having more $$$ (research etc.), but their overall classroom teaching was not any more/less challenging then my undergrad state school.

I second this wholeheartedly. School is tough no matter where you go folks...I'm sorry that you payed (or more likely, your parents paid) an exorbitant amount of money for that Ivy League education, but the god's honest truth is that this is a numbers game and if you don't have the scores, then all the Latin diplomas in the world aren't going to make a bit of difference. The "top schools" have a reputation for producing students with egos that rival the size of their trust funds but please spare us...we don't care if you were smart in high school, it's what you're doing now that matters.

 

[cdmOMR]

I second this wholeheartedly. School is tough no matter where you go folks...I'm sorry that you payed (or more likely, your parents paid) an exorbitant amount of money for that Ivy League education, but the god's honest truth is that this is a numbers game and if you don't have the scores, then all the Latin diplomas in the world aren't going to make a bit of difference. I know that the attitude tends to come with the degree at most of the "top schools", but please spare us...we don't care if you were smart in high school, it's what you're doing now that matters.

How bout paying a a$$ load of money for a lower ranked school! I really chose the short end of the stick . Although I do pay for my own school with student loans.

 

[aggie-master]

State schools suck. I think if you went to a private school you should be able to get in with a low GPA and a low DAT.

If you go to a state school you should need a 4.0 and a 25 on the DAT to get in.

btw, I just want to point out that many people in state schools chose to go to that state school for various reasons such as family ties, location, price, atmosphere, etc. I had stats that were good enough to get into a higher ranked school but I would have come out with about 5 times more debt.

 

[jkh1886]

I completely expected that some people on here would misread my argument. My argument was simply the claim ...people from noname schools with ultra-high gpa's are "smarter" than students with lower gpa's from top private schools... is too faulty. I said nothing of superiority.

 

[drpduck]

State schools suck. I think if you went to a private school you should be able to get in with a low GPA and a low DAT.

If you go to a state school you should need a 4.0 and a 25 on the DAT to get in.

btw, I just want to point out that many people in state schools chose to go to that state school for various reasons such as family ties, location, price, atmosphere, etc. I had stats that were good enough to get into a higher ranked school but I would have come out with about 5 times more debt.

To be honest, then you are more then welcome to continue to go to private schools and pay much more money.

If state schools suck, then are you applying to any state dental schools?
I would greatly prefer to attend my state school and pay less then half the cost of private dental schools. And at the end of the day, we would both have D.D.S./D.M.D. behind our names. My state school (Maryland) I believe was rated in the top 10 dental schools the last time the ratings were released by US News (not that those ratings were necessarily fair). It was also the first dental school in the USA. Not meaning to brag by any means, but simply saying state schools suck is a very broad generalization.

I honestly do not think private schools are worth the extra money. This however has been my personal experience (especially since I'm footing the bill!!!!).

I do not care which school I go to, as long as I get a quality education. I woulder rather become a good dentist who is able to provide excellent care for my patients rather then brag that I went to a top dental school.

 

[armorshell]

To be honest, then you are more then welcome to continue to go to private schools and pay much more money.

If state schools suck, then are you applying to any state dental schools?
I would greatly prefer to attend my state school and pay less then half the cost of private dental schools. And at the end of the day, we would both have D.D.S./D.M.D. behind our names. My state school (Maryland) I believe was rated in the top 10 dental schools the last time the ratings were released by US News (not that those ratings were necessarily fair). It was also the first dental school in the USA. Not meaning to brag by any means, but simply saying state schools suck is a very broad generalization.

I honestly do not think private schools are worth the extra money. This however has been my personal experience (especially since I'm footing the bill!!!!).

I do not care which school I go to, as long as I get a quality education. I woulder rather become a good dentist who is able to provide excellent care for my patients rather then brag that I went to a top dental school.

Obviously you missed the sarcasm in AM's post, I'm pretty sure she went to a community college among other things.

I completely expected that some people on here would misread my argument. My argument was simply the claim ...people from noname schools with ultra-high gpa's are "smarter" than students with lower gpa's from top private schools... is too faulty. I said nothing of superiority.

Hence we have the DAT, to show the real breadth of your undergrad education. If your Ivy League private school 3.3 measures up to a State Schools 4.0, it should be made pretty clear by comparing your test scores.

 

[OSUDDS]

state grad schools and undergrad schools arent comparable. Dont be stupid

 

[Ething]

I completely expected that some people on here would misread my argument. My argument was simply the claim ...people from noname schools with ultra-high gpa's are "smarter" than students with lower gpa's from top private schools... is too faulty. I said nothing of superiority.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[ddsjymaeng]

unless it is not a community college it would not be a big problem...
all school r tough except cc

 

[DDS:)]

I dont think it will be any different as long as u have solid scores~

 

[QuackDentist]

state grad schools and undergrad schools arent comparable. Dont be stupid

I come from UC Berkeley... and I think our school is pretty tough despite being a state school. In fact, I know that all of the other UCs are tough too... and what about SUNY Binghamton or SUNY Stonybrook. Just because we come from a public school, a state funded school, that doesn't necessarily mean that we don't have comparable education. Not everyone can afford to go to a private school.

 

[ddsjymaeng]

but u know what my school univ of wisconsin-madison
is as expensive as private schools....

 

[shainapunim]

Another thing is that certain Ivys have great reputations with dental schools. I was told by an admissions officer at UNC that most of the kids admitted from Duke have 4.0's there now and are doing big things and he looks at Duke very well. NC State and UNC represtent the bulk of each class, but they reject a lot of students from there too, whereas instate Duke students have a higher success record.

Oh and whoever said Public schools are the same difficulty level as private was nuts, you have to study your butt of here to pull a C even in a science class, if you goofed off you wont be passing period because everyone else did.

 

[jkh1886]

yep. there are tons of excellent state-funded schools. Prime examples are Berkeley, UCLA, UVA, Michigan, etc. Students from those schools have my full respect.

Hell, I told and CONVINCED my bro to go to a state university over his acceptance from Ivy. He's a hella lot smarter than I am, and he completely rocked at that school in everything. I do not deny that there exists some incredible, incredible students at public universities [while I acknowledge that it's not necessarily the norm].

ps, I detest how some people make the correlation between high dat scores and "smartness". More precisely, high dat's relate to suitability for the field of dentistry. ...like how lsat's predict suitability for law, and mcat's predict such for med. if the dat's were predictors of "smartness," then those that do well on it would do well in law, med, dental, pharm, vet, business, etc.

 

[lifeisgood]

yep. there are tons of excellent state-funded schools. Prime examples are Berkeley, UCLA, UVA, Michigan, etc. Students from those schools have my full respect.

Hell, I told and CONVINCED my bro to go to a state university over his acceptance from Ivy. He's a hella lot smarter than I am, and he completely rocked at that school in everything. I do not deny that there exists some incredible, incredible students at public universities [while I acknowledge that it's not necessarily the norm].

ps, I detest how some people make the correlation between high dat scores and "smartness". More precisely, high dat's relate to suitability for the field of dentistry. ...like how lsat's predict suitability for law, and mcat's predict such for med. if the dat's were predictors of "smartness," then those that do well on it would do well in law, med, dental, pharm, vet, business, etc.

IMO, education is what the individual makes of it. I could spend 4 years at a CC and learn the same if not more than at an Ivy given the same curriculum and books... I also disagree in the fact that most standardized tests, such as the DAT, do correlate very well (for the most part) with intelligence. While there are cases of "lucky" people doing well, you don't often see amazing scores obtained by half-wits...the pat might relate to one's suitability for dentistry, but the rest I feel relates as much to dentistry as it does burger flipping. and law & med [pharm, vet, etc] use different parts of the brain so how can they really be compared... just my opinion.

 

[americanpierg]

yea, you were the example I was thinking of. I saw your stats somewhere on here before.

a friend of mine from high school who wasn't ranked as high went to a public school. In her bio class, the class was curved such that her 68/100 raw score became an A. So, the indication was that she didn't know jack and still got an A.

I got a 91/100 raw score at princeton on hard-ass tests, and it was curved to a B+. And I thought that it was the most eff'ed up thing ever. I was so pissed. [Anyway, I ended up with a 100th percentile on Dat Bio, so that cleared up some things.]

One thing about top schools..... they make those science/math classes brutal!!!! They have to find a way to discriminate among those top, top students so that they can draw an accurate curve!

State schools often post copies of their exams on a bulletin, and when I look at their tests, they're so incredibly easy and straight-forward. So don't dip on low gpa's from top schools.

Keep in mind also that schools like Harvard, Princeton, Yale have mostly valedictorians and such. A good 80% of their students were in the top 10 of their high school class. Virtually none of their students were below the bottom 30% of their class. The system makes it that some of those valedictorians WILL end up at the bottom of the IVY class. It's inevitable. A 3.0 at Cornell is likely to be valedictorian at some point in his life. Those with high gpa's at no name schools should take it as a blessing that they're able to enter a professional field without comparable, prior academic excellence. The system promotes giving opportunities to potential late-bloomers, which is an excellent thing. Be cautious, however, of late-bloomer taking that for granted and claiming that they're now superior.

If you want to argue that way, some of those valedictorians that went to harvard came from very subpar highschools. Ive went to both a public and private (20,000k a year tuition) highschool... and the difference in difficulty there is immensly larger than the difference between harvard and state school A. A kid with a 3.0 highschool gpa goes to a very rigorious highschool and gets a 4.0. A kid with 4.0 highschool gpa from an underpriveldge community where education isnt valued as much goes to harvard because she came from a very noncompetetive hgihschool and gets a 3.0 while at harvard. Does that still mean a harvard 3.0 = a public college 4.0? The difficulty level between colleges are not so much in the tests, but more so in the grading system set up within that college. Some may curve an organic chem course so that a 75% is a 4.0, others will put the 4.0 cutoff at 94. One test wont be immensely more difficult than the other.

 

[americanpierg]

IMO, education is what the individual makes of it. I could spend 4 years at a CC and learn the same if not more than at an Ivy given the same curriculum and books... I also disagree in the fact that most standardized tests, such as the DAT, do correlate very well (for the most part) with intelligence. While there are cases of "lucky" people doing well, you don't often see amazing scores obtained by half-wits...the pat might relate to one's suitability for dentistry, but the rest I feel relates as much to dentistry as it does burger flipping. and law & med [pharm, vet, etc] use different parts of the brain so how can they really be compared... just my opinion.

The DAT hardly correlates to intelligence at all. The DAT is more of a test of determination. It's just like any other test, the more time you put into it, the better the score you're going to get. A half-wit could study for 2 years straight and pull a near perfect score. The greater ur drive to become a dentist, the more effort and time you will invest into studying for the DAT, and the better you will do. If i ace a test, does that mean im smarter than every else who didnt? No, its almost always because I spend more effort and time in studying for the tests. I'm in no way a genious,i feel im below par intelligence wise compared to most people, but i manage to keep a 3.89 gpa just by investing time in my studies. Its not hard to memmorize a bio book, regurgatate the facts, and make simple correlations.

 

[Mackchops]

Okay, this "discussion" about whose school is bigger and better is giving me a headache. Seriously, do you people honestly think that the difference between public and private secondary education is so cut and dry as to be defined with sweeping generalizations like these??? Well, I'll bite.

1) The goal of undergraduate education is to provide an individualized EXPERIENCE. State school? Name-brand? God college? The one that meets your needs and suits your interests will be the best school for you.

2) There is a very large and, as of yet undefined, difference between QUALITY and DIFFICULTY of education. The better educator is not necessarily the hardest and the more difficult curriculum is not necessarily a better, more complete education.

3) Pedigree does not matter in and of itself. See 1 and 2 above.

4) Harvard isn't full of the smartest students. In fact, I know a real idiot that went there because she was able to play some mean lacrosse. Conversely, state schools aren't full of those who didn't get into better schools. I know someone who turned down Brown for UMass because his dad was an alum.

The bottom line is that generalizations and comparisons between "types" of schools are very very hard to make. Throwing out superlatives in reference to ALL namebrand or ALL public schools is way too oversimplified. And that is why standardized tests like the DAT exist -- to serve as the great equalizer. The test-makers don't claim performance as indicators of intelligence. It is by no means a perfect system, but it is a lot better than trying to compare a 3.2 from Swarthmore to a 3.9 from Fitchburg State -- apples and oranges.

So to the op, the undergrad you attended matters insofar as it helps (with grades, ECs, DATs, etc) to paint as complete a picture as possible of your preparation and commitment to complete dental school. ADCOMS want students who a) won't fail out and b) won't change their mind. Your undergrad helps them determine your suitability to these conditions by being a single part of your entire application.

 

[Mackchops]

The DAT hardly correlates to intelligence at all. The DAT is more of a test of determination. It's just like any other test, the more time you put into it, the better the score you're going to get. A half-wit could study for 2 years straight and pull a near perfect score.

I know some very dumb and highly educated people as well as some very intelligent individuals with little to no formal education. So does a B.S., Ph.D, or D.D.S. "correlate to intelligence"? Only in an ideal world...

 

[biocmp]

Those with high gpa's at no name schools should take it as a blessing that they're able to enter a professional field without comparable, prior academic excellence. The system promotes giving opportunities to potential late-bloomers, which is an excellent thing. Be cautious, however, of late-bloomer taking that for granted and claiming that they're now

I don't know if 'blessing' is the word we should use here. To think that all dental schools could fill their doors from just ivy leaguers and top 10 schools is a reach. And so the people who went to a private school should not count their blessings?

Now if only success at Ivy league and top 10 colleges correlated to a great practice in dentistry, I would be sold. But, I fear even these podunk students from no name universitites are making out to be great dental professionals. Top 10's should be worried. All of this extra education for nothing but merely bragging rights? 🙂

 

[biocmp]

A half-wit could study for 2 years straight and pull a near perfect score.

Completely disagree. I am not saying the DAT is a brain buster, but I have seen too many students whom I have studied with over the years put in exactly the same amount of time as me (organic II) and barely pass the class or worse.

I felt terrible for some of these people. They would put in the same time, they would do problems on the board, but when the test was in front of them, they could hardly tell the difference between a branched alcohol and a carboxylic acid.

This was at a "bigger" university. I've seen the same at a private college I attended.

 

[drteeth]

I think a very important point is being overlooked here - The quality of the education and the professors at different schools, and the curriculum that they provide. I would imagine that Harvard and the other Ivy's have the most qualified and well rounded professors who know how to teach. Additionally, the access to educational resources and learning tools at Ivy's should be superior to the average institution (if not - you're paying too much money). With that said, although better schools with brighter students may have more challenges than the average school, they are also being taught by some of the best professors in smaller classes with more access to anything they need to help them learn the material. I dont think anyone here can disagree that a professor can often make or break a class. Additionally, the smaller classes of Ivy's are more interactive and allow for better in-class learning. Therefore, the exams and the curves SHOULD be more difficult.

I took classes at several different schools during my undergrad - some well regarded schools, and some lower. For the most part, the way I was taught the material and the curriculum of the classes often determined my success. I found it more difficult to do well at the worse schools because the professors sucked, they were unapproachable, they didnt hold discussions or reviews, and the classes were HUGE... etc...
Just my 2cents...

 

[drpduck]

Just to add some fuel, just because you go to an Ivy does not automatically mean your 3.35 is worth 3.6 at a state school. Those of you who posted that Ivy leagers are mostly top of their class in high school is true, but how does this relate to undergrad GPA? I know someone who went to Dartmouth, and even though he did well enough in high school to be accepted, he pretty much just coasted through his classes and got C's. Like I said in my earlier post, the difference in being an Ivy league is that he made my business connections and met many people (resources from the school) simply from being a student at Dartmouth. He is a business major, so this obviously was very helpful to him. I also know someone who went to Harvard, but that was generally b/c he was a great soccer player and they wanted him very much for the team, he didn't have the best grades in high school.

High school success in my opinion has little to do with college success. Many people come to college with great GPA's and SAT's only to flunk out, be it because of lack of studying or too much partying. I've read the other day that some schools are starting to make the SAT optional because they believe it is a poor predictor of college success, I couldn't agree more. In my opinion, most standardized tests do not predict success, rather they show how hard you worked to get that specific score.

Comparing class size, I honestly have found that at my state school with HUGE classes (lower level courses) were much harder then small classes because it is harder to interact with the professor and you really have to try hard to get a lot out of the course. As I went to upper level science courses with smaller class sizes, I found the atmosphere more relaxed and less "cut-throat", because they are not required classes for pre-med/dental/pharm etc. students and thus did not have a large proportion of people stressing out so much about beating someone else out so they could get an A and look good for professional schools. Not to mention in small classes the professor is much easier to interact with and you get a lot more out of classes.

It does not matter which school you go to, in the end, a good GPA and DAT will get you in no matter which school you went to for undergrad. Honestly I think school and education has become majorly competitive over the past few years, and found many people in undergrad could care less about the subject matter, but just always think "how can I do this so it looks good for professional school"?

 

[NYUCD2010]

As someone with a degree from an Ivy (Harvard) as well as one from a top 10/15 institution (Northwestern), I would like to say a few things.

1) Let's be honest. The world is superficial, especially when it involves people in competitive professions (e.g. medicine, law, dentistry, finance). A name-brand degree will cost more, but you will get most (if not all) of it back throughout your career... as long as you know how to utilize (aka "milk") your resume and school name wisely. I do not profess to be quicker or smarter than most people on this forum - but I have the option of dropping the H-bomb (or the N-bomb... haha!) whenever necessary.

2) Whether or not other people argue about the merits of a prestigious name-brand college doesn't matter to me. In fact, I don't have to argue at all because I went to great schools and most did not. If I really wanted to waste time comparing my intelligence/stats to other people's, don't you think I'd rather compare with others who also went to comparable schools? I already have a tough time trying to outcompete the thousands of other smart-asses who also have Ivy degrees (trust me - I worked in management consulting, venture capital, and a bit of ibanking before dental school... and in those fields, your school name MATTERS - especially for minorities like me).

I know some of the aforementioned may come off as superiority-complex-driven, but it really isn't. It's simply my opinion, so please take it with a grain of salt. Besides, I'm sure I would feel differently had I gone to less-respected schools.... but I didn't. End of story.

 

[drteeth]

As someone with a degree from an Ivy (Harvard) as well as one from a top 10/15 institution (Northwestern), I would like to say a few things.

1) Let's be honest. The world is superficial, especially when it involves people in competitive professions (e.g. medicine, law, dentistry, finance). A name-brand degree will cost more, but you will get most (if not all) of it back throughout your career... as long as you know how to utilize (aka "milk") your resume and school name wisely.

2) Whether or not other people argue about the merits of a prestigious name-brand college doesn't matter to me. In fact, I don't have to argue at all because I went to great schools and most did not. If I really wanted to waste time comparing my intelligence/stats to other people's, don't you think I'd rather compare with others who also went to comparable schools? I already have a tough time trying to outcompete the thousands of other smart-asses who already have Ivy degrees like me (trust me - I worked in management consulting and venture capital before dental school... and in those fields, your school name MATTERS - especially for minorities like me.).

I know some of the aforementioned may come off as superiority-complex-driven, but it really isn't. It's simply my opinion, and I'm sure I would feel differently had I gone to less-respected schools. End of story.

I agree. It does give Ivy grads an edge - especially in the business/political world. I also agree that dent schools would give preference to an Ivy league grad because yes, it is a superficial world. I do not think, however, that the preference should be made based on the idea that Ivy grads proved themselves more capable than a grad from a state/public school, or that they had a more rigorous schedule. IMHO a 3.3 is equally difficult to achieve at a state/public school as it as an Ivy. Obviously though, it depends on what kind of student you are and what kind of environment works best for you....

 

[issa]

here are facts from last year's cycle
1. a student with 3.8 gpa who majored in spanish got accepted to 5 dental schools with 19AA dat.

2. a different student with almost 3.0 gpa in engineering got accepted to just 1 dental school with 21AA dat.

the major doesn't matter and it doesn't matter which school you went to.

 

[HermeytheElf]

As someone with a degree from an Ivy (Harvard) as well as one from a top 10/15 institution (Northwestern), I would like to say a few things.

1) Let's be honest. The world is superficial, especially when it involves people in competitive professions (e.g. medicine, law, dentistry, finance). A name-brand degree will cost more, but you will get most (if not all) of it back throughout your career... as long as you know how to utilize (aka "milk") your resume and school name wisely. I do not profess to be quicker or smarter than most people on this forum - but I have the option of dropping the H-bomb (or the N-bomb... haha!) whenever necessary.

2) Whether or not other people argue about the merits of a prestigious name-brand college doesn't matter to me. In fact, I don't have to argue at all because I went to great schools and most did not. If I really wanted to waste time comparing my intelligence/stats to other people's, don't you think I'd rather compare with others who also went to comparable schools? I already have a tough time trying to outcompete the thousands of other smart-asses who also have Ivy degrees (trust me - I worked in management consulting and venture capital before dental school... and in those fields, your school name MATTERS - especially for minorities like me).

I know some of the aforementioned may come off as superiority-complex-driven, but it really isn't. It's simply my opinion, so please take it with a grain of salt. Besides, I'm sure I would feel differently had I gone to less-respected schools.... but I didn't. End of story.

Just out of curiosity...if your degree from Harvard is doing so much for you, how did you end up at NYU? Do you just like the idea of having so many student loans that your grandchildren will still be paying them off in 100 years?

 

[egots]

yep. there are tons of excellent state-funded schools. Prime examples are Berkeley, UCLA, UVA, Michigan, etc. Students from those schools have my full respect.

Hell, I told and CONVINCED my bro to go to a state university over his acceptance from Ivy. He's a hella lot smarter than I am, and he completely rocked at that school in everything. I do not deny that there exists some incredible, incredible students at public universities [while I acknowledge that it's not necessarily the norm].

ps, I detest how some people make the correlation between high dat scores and "smartness". More precisely, high dat's relate to suitability for the field of dentistry. ...like how lsat's predict suitability for law, and mcat's predict such for med. if the dat's were predictors of "smartness," then those that do well on it would do well in law, med, dental, pharm, vet, business, etc.

i def agree with you the DAT is not a measure of intelligence, fyi there are incredible students at all schools some ppl just value free college experience as opposed to a school with a name that will yield a financial burden...i disagree with you about the DAT being a parameter to determine success in dental school, dental school is a whole different thing, some ppl study 3 months to get 22+ other study a few weeks, my cousin is in her 4th year at what many SDNERS would view as a safety school and she got 98 boards and 1st in her class and i think her TS was an 18 AA 19...some ppl have different levels of commitment at different stages of their life...and on a complete other note you know whats real good einstein bagels in princeton and that one breakfast placee right by the movie theater