UOP: why is ave GPA so low and ave DAT so high?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

UCB student

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
UOP stats:

Ave GPA: 3.39
Science GPA: 3.30

Ave DAT AA 21
Ave DAT TS 21
Ave DAT PAT 19

Source: http://dental.pacific.edu/admissions1/DDS/faq.htm

To me, that is pretty crazy. It seems like all the emphasis is on the DAT and GPA consideration is pretty lax. This gets me slightly angry because I know I spent a lot of time studying for class and worked hard for a 3.83 in molecular biology from Berkeley. But just because I didn't do so well on the DAT (AA 21, PAT 17), it seems like I'm screwed for UOP. I don't understand why a test that took only four hours should be weighted more than GPA, which took four YEARS of hard work to assess.

I know I'm ranting here, but I really do feel pretty jipped. It just doesn't make any sense to me. If UOP has averages like that, then their entering class will be filled with the smart/lazy types. People who can score 20+ on the DAT should be able to get way higher than a 3.39 GPA, in my opinion. Oh well, whatever. Just gotta roll with it, I guess.

Members don't see this ad.
 
You have a 3.8 GPA and 21 AA and you are sitting there complaining? about UOP's 3.3 average GPA and 21 AA? What the f***?! :rolleyes:
 
UCB student said:
To me, that is pretty crazy. It seems like all the emphasis is on the DAT and GPA consideration is pretty lax. This gets me slightly angry because I know I spent a lot of time studying for class and worked hard for a 3.83 in molecular biology from Berkeley. But just because I didn't do so well on the DAT (AA 21, PAT 17), it seems like I'm screwed for UOP. I don't understand why a test that took only four hours should be weighted more than GPA, which took four YEARS of hard work to assess.

Whether you agree or not, sometimes grades can be inflated. There is nothing to correlate one school's grades to another. You can't just go by reputation because even Ivy League schools have inflated grades. The DAT is the only thing that can show you a correlation from something standardized across the whole pool of applicants.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
UCB student said:
UOP stats:

Ave GPA: 3.39
Science GPA: 3.30

Ave DAT AA 21
Ave DAT TS 21
Ave DAT PAT 19

Source: http://dental.pacific.edu/admissions1/DDS/faq.htm

To me, that is pretty crazy. It seems like all the emphasis is on the DAT and GPA consideration is pretty lax. This gets me slightly angry because I know I spent a lot of time studying for class and worked hard for a 3.83 in molecular biology from Berkeley. But just because I didn't do so well on the DAT (AA 21, PAT 17), it seems like I'm screwed for UOP. I don't understand why a test that took only four hours should be weighted more than GPA, which took four YEARS of hard work to assess.

I know I'm ranting here, but I really do feel pretty jipped. It just doesn't make any sense to me. If UOP has averages like that, then their entering class will be filled with the smart/lazy types. People who can score 20+ on the DAT should be able to get way higher than a 3.39 GPA, in my opinion. Oh well, whatever. Just gotta roll with it, I guess.


You have to understand some people (like myself) have been working our rears off and still have trouble raising the gpa.... I had a very very horrible first year since I had the responsibilities of living in a house on my own and learning everythng ie bills, making food, getting to school, and keeping up with everything. Now it seems almost imposible to increase my gpa since I failed a few classes. As well despite retaking a failed course and getting an A+ is still kicking me in the behind since it averages out to be in the C range. With the DAT it gives people like me some hope to still consider dental school. I have become more mature now and if i continue to get A's my gpa should be in the 3 range. Can you see now how 1 bad year can really hurt you? This actually really makes me sad, I try my very best !!
 
UOPs admissions policy makes perfect sense to me. GPAs can vary so much, to get into some colleges you need a 4.0 and 1300 SAT and others any score will get you in. So clearly a 4.0 at one school can be as hard as a 3.0 at another school.

Also many students such as myself did two degrees simultaneously. UOP is one of the few schools that sees that a person with two degrees and a 3.0 can be more of an asset to the profession and the school than say someone who has a 3.6 and studied one subject over 4 years. This is why they say that GPAs are assessed on an individual basis. Now of course if that person had done just one degree and got a 3.0, they wouldn't be favored over the 3.6 student.

Overall I think UOP realizes that GPA isn't the only measure of success of a students undergraduate education. You have to take into account double majors, and other circumstances.

Not only is the DAT an equalizer, but it shows dental schools that a student can handle a pressure situation. Also since UOP is 3 years they want students who can handle a lot of info at once and the DAT definitely requires that.

Of course many other schools value GPA more and they have justifications for their reasons. If you don't feel comfortable with your chances at UOP you have plently of opportunities at other outstanding schools.
 
rajmahal2004 said:
UOPs admissions policy makes perfect sense to me. GPAs can vary so much, to get into some colleges you need a 4.0 and 1300 SAT and others any score will get you in. So clearly a 4.0 at one school can be as hard as a 3.0 at another school.

Also many students such as myself did two degrees simultaneously. UOP is one of the few schools that sees that a person with two degrees and a 3.0 can be more of an asset to the profession and the school than say someone who has a 3.6 and studied one subject over 4 years. This is why they say that GPAs are assessed on an individual basis. Now of course if that person had done just one degree and got a 3.0, they wouldn't be favored over the 3.6 student.

Overall I think UOP realizes that GPA isn't the only measure of success of a students undergraduate education. You have to take into account double majors, and other circumstances.

Not only is the DAT an equalizer, but it shows dental schools that a student can handle a pressure situation. Also since UOP is 3 years they want students who can handle a lot of info at once and the DAT definitely requires that.

Of course many other schools value GPA more and they have justifications for their reasons. If you don't feel comfortable with your chances at UOP you have plently of opportunities at other outstanding schools.


Very well said!! I am also doing a minor and that may be the reason for my marks....also a semister like this Chem I and II, Physics I and II, Calculaus I and II , stats I and II, Biology I and II and Labour studies I and II was not a fun year!!, but i assume most have done all those in 1 year as well right?
 
Grades aren't standardized like the DAT. So, a combination of the two stats (GPA and DAT) give the ADCOM a good indication of how well you'll do in their program. That being said. There are 3 scores that Pacific really wants to be 20 or better: AA, PAT, and RC. And, QR isn't as crucial. Also, the old adage "The squeaky wheel gets the greese" is VERY applicable at Pacific during the application process.
 
UCB student said:
UOP stats:

Ave GPA: 3.39
Science GPA: 3.30

Ave DAT AA 21
Ave DAT TS 21
Ave DAT PAT 19

Source: http://dental.pacific.edu/admissions1/DDS/faq.htm

To me, that is pretty crazy. It seems like all the emphasis is on the DAT and GPA consideration is pretty lax. This gets me slightly angry because I know I spent a lot of time studying for class and worked hard for a 3.83 in molecular biology from Berkeley. But just because I didn't do so well on the DAT (AA 21, PAT 17), it seems like I'm screwed for UOP. I don't understand why a test that took only four hours should be weighted more than GPA, which took four YEARS of hard work to assess.

I know I'm ranting here, but I really do feel pretty jipped. It just doesn't make any sense to me. If UOP has averages like that, then their entering class will be filled with the smart/lazy types. People who can score 20+ on the DAT should be able to get way higher than a 3.39 GPA, in my opinion. Oh well, whatever. Just gotta roll with it, I guess.

Don't worry much! You have decent GPA and DAT scores. A 3.5 GPA at UC Berkeley is like a 4.0 in most of the schools in the country.
 
quit your whining numbnuts
 
jay228 said:
quit your whining numbnuts


FWIW, I think UOP gets a ton of 20+ apps. and 3.9-4.0 gpas. Enough to fill their class 2x over again.
 
I personally think that you're in a good shape. Just like what others said, you come from a VERY good school. You have a 3.3 coming from a place where 10% of their applicants are accepted. Alot of ppl come from schools where 40-90% get accepted. I think your 3.3 from Berk carries more weight than a 3.8-3.9 from average schools.

Good luck!
 
Last year's application cycle saw these numbers:

Total Applicants: ~2600

Competitive Applicants: ~600

Total Interviews (by December 1): 143

Total Interviews (post December 1): uncertain

Total Matriculating: 143


Clarification:

Competitive applicants are those with competitive GPAs and DAT scores. A friend of mine had a ~3.3 gpa and 24 AA and 24 PAT and wasn't interviewed. The competition is fierce.

Total Interviews: they practically accept everyone they interview by December 1 but some students opt for other schools. As a result, interviewing and acceptances continue on into January, February, March, and April.
 
JavadiCavity said:
Grades aren't standardized like the DAT.

Even the DAT isn't really standarized, per se. There is quite a bit of information being passed around on this very messageboard that gives some a slight advantage over others.

Also, keep this in mind. The DAT isn't really a good indicator of a person's intelligence IMO. The DAT seems to be simply an indicator of how much crap you can cram into your head for a 4-hour test, and we all know that the more time you have to cram crap into your head the better off you will be. So who does this scenario favor? It favors average students who have been studying 6, 7, 10, 12+ months rather than the busy double major who was only able to devote a mere four weeks to studying for the DAT. The average guy who studied for the DAT much longer may actually do better on the DAT than the busy double major but in no way should that suggest that the average guy is brighter or a better dental school applicant. In dental school you don't get 8 months to study for a test. Often times you'll only get a weekend to study a mountain of material. Those who studied for a year to take the DAT and rocked it with a 22+ score are in for a world of hurt when they get volumes of information thrown at them in dental school and have very little time to process the material and test on it. So all in all, I think the DAT sucks and is a poor indicator of a student's true abilities. Now, if they gave us all the same amount of time to study for the DAT and nobody had any kind of advantage then it would truly be a standardized test. But to compare a guy who has been carrying a light load of classes, if any at all, and has studied an entire year for the DAT to another guy who has a heavy class load and wasn't able to study as much for the DAT is the fallacy of the system.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Slash said:
Even the DAT isn't really standarized, per se. There is quite a bit of information being passed around on this very messageboard that gives some a slight advantage over others.

Also, keep this in mind. The DAT isn't really a good indicator of a person's intelligence IMO. The DAT seems to be simply an indicator of how much crap you can cram into your head for a 4-hour test, and we all know that the more time you have to cram crap into your head the better off you will be. So who does this scenario favor? It favors average students who have been studying 6, 7, 10, 12+ months rather than the busy double major who was only able to devote a mere four weeks to studying for the DAT. The average guy who studied for the DAT much longer may actually do better on the DAT than the busy double major but in no way should that suggest that the average guy is brighter or a better dental school applicant. In dental school you don't get 8 months to study for a test. Often times you'll only get a weekend to study a mountain of material. Those who studied for a year to take the DAT and rocked it with a 22+ score are in for a world of hurt when they get volumes of information thrown at them in dental school and have very little time to process the material and test on it. So all in all, I think the DAT sucks and is a poor indicator of a student's true abilities. Now, if they gave us all the same amount of time to study for the DAT and nobody had any kind of advantage then it would truly be a standardized test. But to compare a guy who has been carrying a light load of classes, if any at all, and has studied an entire year for the DAT to another guy who has a heavy class load and wasn't able to study as much for the DAT is the fallacy of the system.


sounds like someone didn't do too well on their DAT...
 
nothen2do said:
sounds like someone didn't do too well on their DAT...

I agree with Slash. People who don't agree with that only feel the way they do because they did poorly in their undergraduate studies, but exceptionally well on the DAT, and wanted to use the DAT to justify that they aren't stupid.

I've stated this many times...the DAT is just a memorisation test, and there is no application of the knowledge whatsoever. No critical thinking skills required. You either recall the information, or you don't...and if you don't, you make your best guess. I can't imagine anyone who, if they studied religiously for a year, can't get get a 20+...unless they have memory failure..

and for your info, i got a 22 on my DAT (just so you don't think i'm trying to downplay the DAT because i did poorly).
 
nothen2do said:
sounds like someone didn't do too well on their DAT...

Actually I made a 22 AA and have a 3.65 overall and 3.95 science GPA. I had to work a lot harder for my GPA than I did the DAT score. I just don't put as much stock into the DAT score because I know there are pretty average students out there who do well on the DAT based purely on the fact that they've been studying the material for such a long time. Heck, if you study DAT material for 6 months+ like some who get great scores have done you SHOULD do well even if you failed most of your science classes. Point is, you don't get much time at all to study once you get to dental school so those who did get good DAT scores but had to study a long time to do so will have a hard time in dental school.
 
Slash said:
Actually I made a 22 AA and have a 3.65 overall and 3.95 science GPA. I had to work a lot harder for my GPA than I did the DAT score. I just don't put as much stock into the DAT score because I know there are pretty average students out there who do well on the DAT based purely on the fact that they've been studying the material for such a long time. Heck, if you study DAT material for 6 months+ like some who get great scores have done you SHOULD do well even if you failed most of your science classes. Point is, you don't get much time at all to study once you get to dental school so those who did get good DAT scores but had to study a long time to do so will have a very hard time in dental school.

You know, the same can be said about your GPA. If I studied for 6+ months for a class, I would hope that I would do well in it. And this comes to another point. You work really hard for that stellar GPA, and so lots of the DAT material should already be ingrained in your system. Biology, Orgo, chem, reading comprehensively, doing math...all that good stuff. Great for the people who have a lot of time to study for the DAT, better for the people who are more efficient by doing well in school and gaining knowledge in the subject matter that is tested on the DAT.


The whole "that guy studied for 6 months" argument doesn;t work for me. Your 3.65 GPA is great, but how can an adcom decipher the rigor of your school? 2 applicants, with the same GPA's, same extracurrs... but who go to different schools can only be compared subjectively through a standardized test. It sucks, but there is that saying, something to do with sucky life.
 
nothen2do said:
You know, the same can be said about your GPA. If I studied for 6+ months for a class, I would hope that I would do well in it.

i don't believe that to be true. first of all, our final grade for a course is determined by a series of examinations, homework assignments, or projects. We do not have 6 months to work on each of those components, and there is a time limit as to when we take our exams, etc. second of all, if you attend one of the top undergraduate schools in the US, you would realise that the majority of the exams are very conceptual. you have to understand and be able to apply the concepts to real problems (as opposed to regurgitating memorised information)...even if you DID have 6 months, if you are unable to understand the concepts thoroughly, i doubt one would do very well in the course.
 
Does any of this matter? The DAT isn't going away. The fact is that schools base their decisions largely on the results of this test and GPA. Being on the other side of the application process, I can tell you that the TS portion of the test, which is the rote memorization part, isn't as important as the PAT and the RC scores, areas that you can't memorize for. The DAT science section is a snapshot, and when combined with your science GPA gives the adcoms the information they need to assess your predicted performance in d-school.

GPA plays a bigger role than the DAT. In most cases, the relationship between GPA and the DAT is 60/40. Pacific feels like the DAT, specifically, the AA, RC, and PAT are good predictors for how well a student will do in Pacific's program.
 
JavadiCavity said:
Does any of this matter? The DAT isn't going away. The fact is that schools base their decisions largely on the results of this test and GPA. Being on the other side of the application process, I can tell you that the TS portion of the test, which is the rote memorization part, isn't as important as the PAT and the RC scores, areas that you can't memorize for. The DAT science section is a snapshot, and when combined with your science GPA gives the adcoms the information they need to assess your predicted performance in d-school.

GPA plays a bigger role than the DAT. In most cases, the relationship between GPA and the DAT is 60/40. Pacific feels like the DAT, specifically, the AA, RC, and PAT are good predictors for how well a student will do in Pacific's program.

well, just because the DAT isn't going to go away doesn't mean it's not worth talking about...

just because it's the way it is doesn't necessarily mean it's the right way...

are you implying that everything in the world is just right just because it's the way it is? or because tests have "proven" their accuracy? i hope not...
 
JavadiCavity said:
Pacific feels like the DAT, specifically, the AA, RC, and PAT are good predictors for how well a student will do in Pacific's program.

I defintely agree here. So far, the people who did really well on the PAT (23+) are killing on the preclinical stuff, whereas I scored the UOP average (19) and am scoring um, very average on the hand skills. :(
 
Also i remeber during the first week they said, like javadi said, that they have done studies and success at pacific followed DAT scores more than GPA numbers. that is why they weigh them more, if that is their info then it makes sense
 
JavadiCavity said:
Grades aren't standardized like the DAT. So, a combination of the two stats (GPA and DAT) give the ADCOM a good indication of how well you'll do in their program. That being said. There are 3 scores that Pacific really wants to be 20 or better: AA, PAT, and RC. And, QR isn't as crucial. Also, the old adage "The squeaky wheel gets the greese" is VERY applicable at Pacific during the application process.



Standardized or not, maybe a good DAT score represents the small amount of students who are able to afford a prep course like KAPLAN.

I would bet the farm that you took Kaplan.

See I couldnt afford to take the course and was forced to study old notes. I had to study much more information but scored straight 20's and a 21 on the PAT. So if the field was level then a school should pick me over someone with a 24 that took a prep course, right?

However, thats not how it works and thats why I say the DAT is crap.

The system sucks IMO.
 
My GPA sucked: 3.21 Science, 3.20 overall. DAT's were: AA:21, TS:23, PAT: 23, I went to the UWash undergrad and lemme tell ya....it was hard getting that 3.2. But you know what? That 3.20 is prob better than most ppl's 3.89, GRADE INFLATION. the DAT is standardized.
 
We could argue forever on this topic and almost every point of view would or could be justified. Someone rightly said that schools look at the kinds of scores that work well for their programs and pick their students accordingly. Good for them. I have always believed standardized tests to be a measure of how much you can memorize. in some cases,its a good thing. Those kinds of skills will help you in some aspects of whatever course you are taking. The GPA measures another kind of (for lack of a better term) 'intelligence.' The ability to master concepts and apply them is important too.

What I do not accept is this:
Standardized test are a measure of a person's intelligence.
I don't believe they are.

One thing I think we forget quite often on this forum is that, even though scores play a big role in getting accepted, they are not EVERYTHING considered.
What you are. Who you are. Your values. Your convictions. These are important and I believe that is what most adcoms think of when they say they consider your WHOLE application.

People need to stop beating each other up about my score this, my school that , your GPA this.
We are all so wrapped up in competition that it seems like we dont even care to talk about the real meaning of our future careers-- the people, the pain, the healing, the life.

I have seen threads on DAT scores, GPA, Money. all of these are good and we deal with stuff like that on this forum. I am just tired of seeing future dentists so wrapped up in surface things.

If a school interviews you (you know you have the numbers to get in) and they feel the passion you have for dentistry, that makes a difference. We act like we dont know people with incredible scores that still get rejected.

If you are passionate about something. You can and will succeed at it. If you went to a Big school or a small school. good for you. If you have a 4.0 or a 2.8, good for you. People will not remember you for your scores or where you went but for the impact you made TO LIVES.
DONT EVER LET anybody tell you you are not good enough for this or that. Stop asking people to make decisions for you. "what do you think of my chances?" BULL****! WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR CHANCES? The answer to that is the strength that will take you thru the most difficult situations.
Let's focus people.
I am guilty of many of the things i've talked about and i'm also trying to re-focus.

SORRY for the long post. :)
 
amen to that!!

great post!! it really puts things back into perspective
 
I agree. Great post Duh.

I think the best thing to do is to work hard and do well on both. Many of the admissions councilors have answered my question of "what is more important, DAT or GPA?" with "They should be in line with each other". If you have a good GPA, you should be able to get a good DAT score. If you scored well on the DAT your GPA should be good as well. They say high GPA low DAT can mean they don't do well under high pressure tests like that. Unfortunately you still have some important standardized tests like the boards to take. If your DAT is high and GAP low, that could indicate someone who slacked a bit in college. Of course, all that could be BS is your situation. They'll look at that.

Of course, I don't believe your scores define you as a person. They may help you get through the first couple cuts and earn an interview, but it's how your perform at your interview that will get you the seat in their class. I'd take that to the bank.

It's got to be hard to select 50-100 people to accept to your school from over 2000, but you've got to narrow it down somehow. If UoP does it that way, power to them.

Good luck to you all. :)
 
Top