"Well rounded" vs "high stats" discussion

[artist2022]

It's common sense to accept the higher GPA, if everything else is equal (DAT, ECs, etc). Accepting the lower GPA, just because of the undergrad attended, is irrational.

No because schools like Harvard are extremely difficult to get into, but once you're in it doesn't mean it will be easy to get good grades. You have to work hard for them and it might be reflected in your GPA. On the other hand, schools that have higher acceptances rates are obviously easier to get into, and are usually easier to do well in. This was one of my biggest worries, I have 3.96Sci/3.98BCP/3.87o but I went to a state university, tbh it was easy to get good grades ( I did work hard in Ochem though, that was my only A- in my BCP), and I had to prove myself with my DAT. I don't think a high GPA from a "lower ranked" uni would be preferred over a low GPA from a top university, even if all other aspects of the app were the same.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Life of Pablo]

At the end of the day, no matter what dental school you go to, everyone will graduate with a DDS/DMD. Everyone's path to dental school is slightly different, and graduating from any US dental school is a huge accomplishment that you should feel proud of regardless of the school you attend/have attended.

I just like to overthink/overanalyze things, that's why I created this topic. It's nice to hear everyone's thoughts

 

[toothdoctor123]

It's common sense to accept the higher GPA, if everything else is equal (DAT, ECs, etc). Accepting the lower GPA, just because of the undergrad attended, is irrational.

I understand how that seems like common sense, but you're making a presumption about how admissions committees make decisions when, as far as SDN should be concerned, this is an empirical matter rather than one of opinion. We can simply read what the admissions officers say and look at class profiles to observe that students who attended prestigious and/or notably challenging undergrad programs are overrespresented at certain dental schools (especially the Ivies but also some seemingly random private and state schools).

Some people might counter that this is a result of student selection bias (i.e. the students who already benefit from academic prestige may overvalue the names of particular dental schools), which probably plays some role; however, in four different interviews, admissions officers--including two deans of admissions--told me without prompting that they were impressed by my 3.5 GPA because of the reputation of my undergrad college. One of the interviewers explicitly told me that he felt my 3.5 GPA was "worth more" than a 4.0 from an average university (although I admit that this made me really uncomfortable...I interpreted it as a humility test).

It is without question that GPA is not a standardized measure of applicant aptitude or even academic performance across different institutions. This is why the DAT exists. Period.

I attended a college where a very large percentage of students were high school valedictorians, letter grades were subject to anti-inflation policies and did not have to represent the numerical scores in courses, and the typical workload literally drove some of my former classmates to the psych ward. (I do have some great memories, but in many respects it was an awful experience.) Anyway, I was an average science student at my college. I also audited a summer course at a regional state school, and I tutored MCAT science to a few pre-med students at the flagship state university. I was absolutely shocked by the discrepancy in academic standards. Honestly, I felt bad for those pre-med students at the state university because their grades seemed to be based on their ability to jump through stupid hoops, like following cookbook-like lab manuals and doing busy-work problem sets for TAs. They got A's for effort, not for doing quality work. Of course, this was reflected in their need for months of test prep when it was time to get serious about their pre-med education. I felt even worse for the students who are genuinely intelligent but got shafted by this grading system because it was ruthlessly unforgiving of their extenuating circumstances.

--

P.S. Keep in mind that this discussion refers to unrealistic theoretical scenario. Applicants are not compared to each other one at a time in a 'battle royale' for individual seats in a class. Plus it would be impossible to make the objective judgement that two personal statements or interview performances are equal. Even if it were attempted, admissions officers would be far more likely to make a gut decision to favor one over another rather than sit at a conference table for an hour to determine that two applicants are precisely equal in specific parts of their applications. Furthermore, given the conditions (1) that an applicant from, say, Harvard College and another from Big State U have the same DAT score and (2) that the Harvard student has an average GPA and the Big State U student has a 4.0, then it is more likely than not that this is a high DAT score and thus that neither will have trouble getting into dental school.

The fact that we know some dental schools consider the rigor of an applicant's institution shouldn't worry anyone. There is no reason to believe that this has ever worked against an applicant with competitive stats.

 

[670206]

I understand how that seems like common sense, but you're making a presumption about how admissions committees make decisions when, as far as SDN should be concerned, this is an empirical matter rather than one of opinion. We can simply read what the admissions officers say and look at class profiles to observe that students who attended prestigious and/or notably challenging undergrad programs are overrespresented at certain dental schools (especially the Ivies but also some seemingly random private and state schools).

Some people might counter that this is a result of student selection bias (i.e. the students who already benefit from academic prestige may overvalue the names of particular dental schools), which probably plays some role; however, in four different interviews, admissions officers--including two deans of admissions--told me without prompting that they were impressed by my 3.5 GPA because of the reputation of my undergrad college. One of the interviewers explicitly told me that he felt my 3.5 GPA was "worth more" than a 4.0 from an average university (although I admit that this made me really uncomfortable...I interpreted it as a humility test).

It is without question that GPA is not a standardized measure of applicant aptitude or even academic performance across different institutions. This is why the DAT exists. Period.

I attended a college where a very large percentage of students were high school valedictorians, letter grades were subject to anti-inflation policies and did not have to represent the numerical scores in courses, and the typical workload literally drove some of my former classmates to the psych ward. (I do have some great memories, but in many respects it was an awful experience.) Anyway, I was an average science student at my college. I also audited a summer course at a regional state school, and I tutored MCAT science to a few pre-med students at the flagship state university. I was absolutely shocked by the discrepancy in academic standards. Honestly, I felt bad for those pre-med students at the state university because their grades seemed to be based on their ability to jump through stupid hoops, like following cookbook-like lab manuals and doing busy-work problem sets for TAs. They got A's for effort, not for doing quality work. Of course, this was reflected in their need for months of test prep when it was time to get serious about their pre-med education. I felt even worse for the students who are genuinely intelligent but got shafted by this grading system because it was ruthlessly unforgiving of their extenuating circumstances.

--

P.S. Keep in mind that this discussion refers to unrealistic theoretical scenario. Applicants are not compared to each other one at a time in a 'battle royale' for individual seats in a class. Plus it would be impossible to make the objective judgement that two personal statements or interview performances are equal. Even if it were attempted, admissions officers would be far more likely to make a gut decision to favor one over another rather than sit at a conference table for an hour to determine that two applicants are precisely equal in specific parts of their applications. Furthermore, given the conditions (1) that an applicant from, say, Harvard College and another from Big State U have the same DAT score and (2) that the Harvard student has an average GPA and the Big State U student has a 4.0, then it is more likely than not that this is a high DAT score and thus that neither will have trouble getting into dental school.

The fact that we know some dental schools consider the rigor of an applicant's institution shouldn't worry anyone. There is no reason to believe that this has ever worked against an applicant with competitive stats.

The DAT is certainly the equalizer. I'm basing my argument on the answer given by adcoms in the pre-med forums on SDN, not students.

 

[LateBloomer88]

The DAT is certainly the equalizer. I'm basing my argument on the answer given by adcoms in the pre-med forums on SDN, not students.

Ironically, Harvard is well known for grade inflation. This article is old but it's reported to have continued: Substantiating Fears of Grade Inflation, Dean Says Median Grade at Harvard College Is A-, Most Common Grade Is A | News | The Harvard Crimson

The DAT is the great equalizer

 

[toothdoctor123]

The DAT is certainly the equalizer. I'm basing my argument on the answer given by adcoms in the pre-med forums on SDN, not students.

Sure, lots of dental and medical schools do make decisions that way. I believe a few schools have even claimed that they don't consider school name at all. BUT, some the dental schools discussed in this thread (Columbia, Penn, etc.) do consider the general rigor of undergrad programs, which often (but not necessarily) corresponds to prestige. That's all I'm saying.

Also, I haven't read the pre-med thread to which you're referring, but if they are talking specifically about Harvard, it is worth mentioning that their undergrad college is infamous for grade inflation. Adcoms are all aware of it. So I don't think it is the best exemplar for all competitive undergrad schools. A better one might be MIT, since it is more obvious that it is considered impressive for a pre-med/dent majoring in engineering to maintain a B+ average there.

 

[toothdoctor123]

Ironically, Harvard is well known for grade inflation. This article is old but it's reported to have continued: Substantiating Fears of Grade Inflation, Dean Says Median Grade at Harvard College Is A-, Most Common Grade Is A | News | The Harvard Crimson

The DAT is the great equalizer

Beat me to it!

 

[Kurk]

**** like this really gets my blood boiling—and not a whole lot of things do that.

My parents immigrated to America from a country where high-school students take a three hour test after their senior year to determine what profession they match into. You have only a couple hours on a test to determine if you're good enough to match into dentistry, medicine, law, etc.

When I hear that professional schools are willing to allow applicants with lower GPA's and standardized scores into their programs over those with superior stats because the former is more "sociable" and has an extraordinary amount of time to spend on volunteering and shadowing really pisses me off.

Policies like these are going to drive the health-care system to hell. I don't care if my doctor is a bit awkward or not that personal; I care that they were the top of their class and dedicated the majority of time to their studies so they can do an superb job—not an adequate job—a great job. Volunteering and shadowing is fine to get a feel for the field and determine if you're a fit, but other than that the fake altruism is the biggest lie and waste of time for any student.

If two students have a similar GPA and DAT then I can see how the extra stuff matters. Otherwise nothing supersedes the transcript. I genuinely feel bad for those students (I think of the tiger-mom kids) who are going to possibly be at a disadvantage against weaker students in the name of "diversity" or whatever other bull**** they're pushing.

It's like I'm better off getting into dental school in an under-developed country where these kinds of stupid barriers don't exist.

 

[Anothercalidds]

Okay. I count Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia as a part of Asia, but I can understand it being counted as Europe. I also agree with ethnicities being more specific, but there are hundreds of ethnicities, so I think that would be hard on the schools part to know and understand each. Most people think I made up my ethnicity in my childhood and even now I get questioning looks. I feel like what you want is the dream, but it probably won't ever happen, which is frustrating.

Armenia is in between Europe and Asia. Just had to say that for my ppl.

 

[Trigeminal08]

 

[sobertiger]

**** like this really gets my blood boiling—and not a whole lot of things do that.

My parents immigrated to America from a country where high-school students take a three hour test after their senior year to determine what profession they match into. You have only a couple hours on a test to determine if you're good enough to match into dentistry, medicine, law, etc.

When I hear that professional schools are willing to allow applicants with lower GPA's and standardized scores into their programs over those with superior stats because the former is more "sociable" and has an extraordinary amount of time to spend on volunteering and shadowing really pisses me off.

Policies like these are going to drive the health-care system to hell. I don't care if my doctor is a bit awkward or not that personal; I care that they were the top of their class and dedicated the majority of time to their studies so they can do an superb job—not an adequate job—a great job. Volunteering and shadowing is fine to get a feel for the field and determine if you're a fit, but other than that the fake altruism is the biggest lie and waste of time for any student.

If two students have a similar GPA and DAT then I can see how the extra stuff matters. Otherwise nothing supersedes the transcript. I genuinely feel bad for those students (I think of the tiger-mom kids) who are going to possibly be at a disadvantage against weaker students in the name of "diversity" or whatever other bull**** they're pushing.

It's like I'm better off getting into dental school in an under-developed country where these kinds of stupid barriers don't exist.

I can see why it bothers you, but is the person with the highest GPA and DAT score necessarily going to be the best dentist or doctor? I don't think so, and dental/medical schools don't seem to think so either (though some certainly emphasize GPA/DAT more than the others). And it's not just about diversity, but picking the best applicant.

Human interaction is a huge part of healthcare. As such, there are multiple factors, including character, that count toward becoming a good doctor apart from GPA and standardized exam scores.

You mentioned the system in your parents' country. It's the same in my home country. The only thing that matters for admission to medical/dental school is the score you get on the college entrance exam. Because so many students are taking the test, one or two questions can be the difference between the person who is accepted and the one who isn't. That, to me, is BS. How does getting one or two more questions right make you a better candidate for med/dental school? It's objective, sure, but is this really the kind of objectivity you're looking for?

Also, a transcript is not as objective as you think it is. A 3.4-3.5 from a place like Chicago, Michigan or Berkeley is worth hell of a lot more than a 3.9-4.0 from Podunk University, yet with the way dental schools look at applicants, the guy with the inflated 3.9 gets the upper hand.

Same with the DAT. Some people are just not very good at taking standardized exams.

Is there fake altruism among the applicants? Absolutely. But that's why we have interviews, to screen out the BSers.

Ultimately, none of these factors are truly objective and that is the reason the admission process is the way it is now, taking various things into account.

And I don't think that this is going to "drive the healthcare system to hell" because the schools still maintain an academic standard for admission.

Even if people somehow slip their way through the screening measures and fake their way into dental school, there are intense course loads and boards in place to weed them out.

Dental schools want a bigger pool to choose from, because that way they have a better chance of finding the candidate they want. It would be far easier for them to just take the applicants with the highest stats, but they don't. They look over thousands of candidates despite the workload because they realize, based on decades of experience, that the GPA and DAT scores (after a certain point) are not necessarily the best indicators for the applicants' success as dental students and more importantly, as dentists.

 

[sobertiger]

Guest Perspective: Holistic Admissions in Dentistry : American Dental Education Association

A great article that outlines the need for a holistic admissions process.

 

[amariesa]

**** like this really gets my blood boiling—and not a whole lot of things do that.

My parents immigrated to America from a country where high-school students take a three hour test after their senior year to determine what profession they match into. You have only a couple hours on a test to determine if you're good enough to match into dentistry, medicine, law, etc.

When I hear that professional schools are willing to allow applicants with lower GPA's and standardized scores into their programs over those with superior stats because the former is more "sociable" and has an extraordinary amount of time to spend on volunteering and shadowing really pisses me off.

Policies like these are going to drive the health-care system to hell. I don't care if my doctor is a bit awkward or not that personal; I care that they were the top of their class and dedicated the majority of time to their studies so they can do an superb job—not an adequate job—a great job. Volunteering and shadowing is fine to get a feel for the field and determine if you're a fit, but other than that the fake altruism is the biggest lie and waste of time for any student.

If two students have a similar GPA and DAT then I can see how the extra stuff matters. Otherwise nothing supersedes the transcript. I genuinely feel bad for those students (I think of the tiger-mom kids) who are going to possibly be at a disadvantage against weaker students in the name of "diversity" or whatever other bull**** they're pushing.

It's like I'm better off getting into dental school in an under-developed country where these kinds of stupid barriers don't exist.

In Canada, we're a lot more stat heavy. The average DAT score for UofT and Western is 22 I think and GPA is 3.92. I met the dental students and all of them are fine and not socially ******ed. This is why interviews are a thing - they weed out those who are terrible socially but the stats are still the holy grail. I feel as though this is the most fair.

Flipside though - If I were a dental school, I would want the student leaders who volunteer everywhere. They are the ones that go out and become leaders in the dental community and get my school's name out there. Even if they are a 3.45 and 19AA

 

[deleted767916]

Just poking my head around and I like to give my two cents:

Number one, stats vs EC: I feel that stats and EC are both important, but stats being more important. However, the quality of the stats I feel is way more important and something people only consider at a minor level. Stats from an extremely difficult undergraduate school in addition to a hard schedule with hard courses are weighed more favorably versus the opposite. I know my advising counselor told me to take an easier semester/major but I personally feel this way because I feel dental schools care about how you will do in dental school and their workload and by emulating it the best way you can, dental schools would be more understanding about a student's GPA since getting a 3.3 or something with a curriculum similar to dental school wouldn't be that bad in actual dental school You can kinda see it in the class profiles, most dental schools as far as I know accept students from at least schools I have heard of but mostly accept students from top tier institutions the most (obviously local universities are the most preferred of all unless it's private in which case idk). For EC, I feel the school's focus is what makes it or breaks it e.g. research for UofMichigan.

Number two, the race topic: As an Asian American I do feel it's pretty unfair that Asians in particular have to score so much better on the DAT and have a better GPA than other minorities in the United States. I honestly feel like I had no advantage versus other students and I am grateful that Michigan doesn't have affirmative action and believe the supreme court's decision to uphold the provision was correct. Even accounting America's historical past, minorities in general have been discriminated yet only Asians are not given even any benefit.
However I feel that there should be some advantage given to students from poorer communities, it's maddening how so many Universities focus on diversity but neglect a student's wealth; even though people say african-americans do have a disadvantage due to the fact that on average they live in poorer communities due to discrimination and the past, I'm 100% confident that a rich african-american definitely has more of an advantage than a poor white person living in a poor rural community.

 

[Kurk]

We have been fed lies from birth. Great academic success does not guarantee you anything anymore if you're not outspoken since a lesser student who had more time to waste shadowing and volunteering (because mommy and daddy can feed them tuition on a silver spoon instead of working themselves to pay) can get the spot over you based on a 15 minute interview rather than your life-long work and LORs. What hypocrites the adcoms are. Only in first world countries does this kind of BS exist. I'm not the most social person in the world and even if I were I wouldn't have the time to waste on it due to busting ass on academics and work.

 

[Krentist_72]

I've never heard before that your undergrad matters ..... that's sad to hear. Would you consider that to be a big factor?

I wasn't going to respond at all until I saw this and I just want to say to take what everyone's saying with a grain of salt!! I went to a small university (not completely unknown but not exceptionally prestigious or famous) and am doing fine so far this cycle. I'd also say I have somewhat average stats (21 AA, 3.65 GPA) but pretty good cocurriculars and a somewhat interesting path to dentistry. The benefit of a small school is taking advantage of everything that comes, volunteer, take leadership, etc. so keep your head up, you'll be fine!

I also think it should be noted for my particular case that the only schools I've gotten interviews from (UCSF, Penn, Boston) are the ones that had supplementals and I worked my a** off on those to showcase who I am and what I stand for. So maybe these schools care a little bit more about character/extracurriculars than we'd think.

However I agree with the initial topic of the post: "top tier" schools don't have to look past stats if they don't want to, but when there's 1000s of applicants with the same stats, or the best scoring applicants go to the top schools, then that may be when cocurriculars are more important.
And I 1000% agree that personality, attitude, character is incredibly important in an applicant since yeah, patients won't know/care about GPA or DAT. It's even more important in a medical field where people have such anxiety, and effective communication is key.

 

[toothdoctor123]

It's like I'm better off getting into dental school in an under-developed country where these kinds of stupid barriers don't exist.

lol...tfw you consider a simple demonstration of human empathy to be a "barrier" to your admission into a health profession

 

[hizi]

We have been fed lies from birth. Great academic success does not guarantee you anything anymore if you're not outspoken since a lesser student who had more time to waste shadowing and volunteering (because mommy and daddy can feed them tuition on a silver spoon instead of working themselves to pay) can get the spot over you based on a 15 minute interview rather than your life-long work and LORs. What hypocrites the adcoms are. Only in first world countries does this kind of BS exist. I'm not the most social person in the world and even if I were I wouldn't have the time to waste on it due to busting ass on academics and work.

with that attitude you won't get too far in a healthcare profession. Sorry... I want my doctor to be nice and smart, not smart and bitter. I've been to those before and I never go back to their office.

 

[amariesa]

Just poking my head around and I like to give my two cents:

Number one, stats vs EC: I feel that stats and EC are both important, but stats being more important. However, the quality of the stats I feel is way more important and something people only consider at a minor level. Stats from an extremely difficult undergraduate school in addition to a hard schedule with hard courses are weighed more favorably versus the opposite. I know my advising counselor told me to take an easier semester/major but I personally feel this way because I feel dental schools care about how you will do in dental school and their workload and by emulating it the best way you can, dental schools would be more understanding about a student's GPA since getting a 3.3 or something with a curriculum similar to dental school wouldn't be that bad in actual dental school You can kinda see it in the class profiles, most dental schools as far as I know accept students from at least schools I have heard of but mostly accept students from top tier institutions the most (obviously local universities are the most preferred of all unless it's private in which case idk). For EC, I feel the school's focus is what makes it or breaks it e.g. research for UofMichigan.

Number two, the race topic: As an Asian American I do feel it's pretty unfair that Asians in particular have to score so much better on the DAT and have a better GPA than other minorities in the United States. I honestly feel like I had no advantage versus other students and I am grateful that Michigan doesn't have affirmative action and believe the supreme court's decision to uphold the provision was correct. Even accounting America's historical past, minorities in general have been discriminated yet only Asians are not given even any benefit.
However I feel that there should be some advantage given to students from poorer communities, it's maddening how so many Universities focus on diversity but neglect a student's wealth; even though people say african-americans do have a disadvantage due to the fact that on average they live in poorer communities due to discrimination and the past, I'm 100% confident that a rich african-american definitely has more of an advantage than a poor white person living in a poor rural community.

Im so on the fence about it. There are studies where minorities trust same race doctors and feel a connection with them and it improves their prognosis (how often they go, how diligently they follow the orders). Diversity in a profession is important or else Asian doctors can be too much the norm and can cause some real racial tensions. On the other side, how can it be at all fair that as an immigrant, you learn their language, work hard, and yet be discriminated against by the color of your skin.

All I can say though is life isn't fair, but everyone's trying their best. Its not as though 0 Asians get in.

 

[caffeine jitters]

I posted this yesterday but I encourage everyone to thumb through it. There is A LOT of interesting information about matriculated students with respect to ethnicity, sex, etc.

Tableau Public

 

[Rand627]

We have been fed lies from birth. Great academic success does not guarantee you anything anymore if you're not outspoken since a lesser student who had more time to waste shadowing and volunteering (because mommy and daddy can feed them tuition on a silver spoon instead of working themselves to pay) can get the spot over you based on a 15 minute interview rather than your life-long work and LORs. What hypocrites the adcoms are. Only in first world countries does this kind of BS exist. I'm not the most social person in the world and even if I were I wouldn't have the time to waste on it due to busting ass on academics and work.

Focus on "high school" and stop trolling these forums.

 

[SoftGel]

I agree about diversity, that's super important, but one thing that really gets to me is having everyone that is from Asia (Except Russians I guess) be classified as Asian. Like even on the SAT dude, it's like if you're from the continent of Asia, you are Asian. My high school was like 95% Asian (Taiwanese, Chinese, Korean) but I was counted in that Asian. Idk, just ranting. I'm glad the AADSAS is nothing like college apps and actually has waaaaaay more ethnicities (?) than other things.

You're HS was 95% Asian? Holy ****, where are you, Canal St?