What does it take to get into ortho?

[Tarheel]

I know two GP's who practice almost exclusive ortho. They both went to some CE's and both stated that the actual "know how" and "nuts and bolts" of ortho isn't that complex. Both of them are listed as "general dentists with practice limited to orthodontics". They said that the information is highly protected by the profession, more than it is a significant jump in skill and information. Why not go this route? I know alot of pedo's who do some really great profitable little ortho tx for crossbites. What do you pre ortho's/ortho residents think of this idea.

The American Dental association has stated it position in its code of ethics. Section 5 - Principle : Veracity ("truthfulness") subsection H

"...Dentists who choose to announce specialization should use 'specialist in' or 'practice limited to' and shall limit their practice exclusively to the announced specialty area(s) of dental practice, provided at the time of the announcement such dentists have met in each approved specialty for which they announce the existing educational requirements and standards set forth by the American Dental Association. Dentists who use their eligibility to announce as specialists to make the public believe that specialty services rendered in the dental office are being rendered by a qualified specialist when such is not the case are engaged in unethical conduct.... Dentists who announce as specialists must have successfully completed an educational program accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation, two or more years in length, as specified by the Council on Dental Education and Licensure, or be Diplomates of an American Dental Association recognized certifying board."

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[esclavo]

The American Dental association has stated it position in its code of ethics. Section 5 - Principle : Veracity ("truthfulness") subsection H

"...Dentists who choose to announce specialization should use 'specialist in' or 'practice limited to' and shall limit their practice exclusively to the announced specialty area(s) of dental practice, provided at the time of the announcement such dentists have met in each approved specialty for which they announce the existing educational requirements and standards set forth by the American Dental Association. Dentists who use their eligibility to announce as specialists to make the public believe that specialty services rendered in the dental office are being rendered by a qualified specialist when such is not the case are engaged in unethical conduct.... Dentists who announce as specialists must have successfully completed an educational program accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation, two or more years in length, as specified by the Council on Dental Education and Licensure, or be Diplomates of an American Dental Association recognized certifying board."

Good point. Grif: You're right. It took them a while to work up the reputation and patient load to be able to ditch most of the GP stuff. They will still dabble in a big cosmetic case or do some costmetic stuff in combination with ortho. Tons of general dentists are trained in that invisalign stuff. As for me, I am going to put sealant on peoples molars when I take out their thirds. That way, when I take out the molars in 30 more years they will come out due to perio disease, not caries... much easier extractions. Then I won't have to worry about preserving the buccal plate for implants in 4 months.... My shingle is going to read practice limited to OMFS and then in real small print underneath... and sealants!

 

[orthopls]

Interviews are about getting to know the applicant. But do you and your friends discuss on a regular basis what your 3 strengths and weaknesses are? My friends & I discuss things like the last episode of Desperate Housewives, whether we liked a particular restaurant or not, or some article in the latest issue of Cosmo, but it seemed like none of my interviewers wanted to discuss that stuff with me to "get to know me." They instead dwelled on things like "If you were a program director, what would you do?" or "If you had all the resources to pursue a research project, what would you choose to study?"

Program directors, be it ortho or any other specialty, want to know that you can think quickly on your feet. That is why they ask questions like that. On the same note, I doubt they like rehearsed answers. IMO, taking a moment to think of an intelligent response is better than regurgitating some premeditated answer.

I disagree that reapplicants have more perspective. Especially if the source of said perspective is their miserable experiences as general dentists. If I were a program director, I would think a candidate has perspective if he/she has chosen ortho because of what the profession has to offer, and NOT because the applicant hates general dentistry. I think ortho directors are keen on recognizing to which of these two categories most candidates belong.

 

[orthopls]

Agreed.

There are many, many students who are qualified who dont match. Much more than the 250 or so that did match.

Let me clarify. I meant to convey that most of those who do match are well-qualified. And that there are few people who are "unqualified" who match. The original post by griffin seemed to imply that many of these reapplicants were somehow BETTER qualified than "newbies" because of their "added experience". I disagree (see above post). Easy to claim that people get in because of luck, connections, politics, whatever, but let's not translate that into "newbies who match are less qualified than reapplicants."

 

[gryffindor]

Program directors, be it ortho or any other specialty, want to know that you can think quickly on your feet. That is why they ask questions like that. On the same note, I doubt they like rehearsed answers. IMO, taking a moment to think of an intelligent response is better than regurgitating some premeditated answer.

I disagree that reapplicants have more perspective. Especially if the source of said perspective is their miserable experiences as general dentists. If I were a program director, I would think a candidate has perspective if he/she has chosen ortho because of what the profession has to offer, and NOT because the applicant hates general dentistry. I think ortho directors are keen on recognizing to which of these two categories most candidates belong.

I can debate this till I'm blue in the face, and I will never convince you to see the application process from my point of view. It doesn't matter b/c we're both where we wanted to be for whatever personal reasons drove us to specialize.

However, views similar to yours are what I became sick of hearing over 3 years. That the "profession" of ortho has so much to offer - and then the resident would list all those benefits. Most of those benefits were no different from what general practice has to offer, but there is no point in trying to convince the orthodontist of that, they won't believe it. I still can't figure out why so many orthodontists forget that they had to earn a DDS before getting into the ortho program.

And where exactly in ortho do you have to "think on your feet" - you have 2 to 3 YEARS to finish a treatment plan. What is it about ortho that you need to have superstar stats to "deserve" getting in? Dental schools can teach those with a 3.0GPA/18 DAT to drill teeth within 0.5mm without lacerating the gingiva, lips, and tongue in the process. Then you have the orthodontists who truly believe you need a 95+ on your Part I boards to be able to learn how to bend a wire? I know it's the competitive nature of trying to get in that makes it come down to the numbers to select among hundred of applicants, but I don't think there needs to be the sense of entitlement that stems from the "I worked hard (aka studied a lot) to get a 95 on my boards, so I deserve to be an orthodontist." The poor kid with an 86 may have all the right and noble reasons for wanting to enter ortho, but he's likely not going to get noticed no matter how true his desire for ortho is. Sucks for him that he didn't "work hard enough" to memorize all the minutia in biochem that will prepare him to be a good orthodontist.

A reapplicant does have perspective. IMO, reapplicants (who have the stats) demonstrate that they really want to practice ortho - they have persistence and are not letting a rejection in the way of their goals. There are those who give up after they don't get in on the first shot. My friends & I wondered why it is that we seemed to meet the same pre-2006 grads over & over again at interviews when the majority of interview candidates were always newbies - yet half the people who entered match were pre-2006. Where are all the pre-2006 people? I NEVER mentioned in an interview that the misery of GP is what is driving me to ortho - I'm not stupid. It's not easy to go through the entire process AGAIN and AGAIN and wait for an e-mail to decide your fate on match day. I had my "noble" reasons that I decided upon when I applied as a senior, it just took 3 years for me to get in, and along the way I picked up some more reasons for why I wanted it even more (treating live patients does add more perspective to ANY specialty). But like drben said in the other thread, at the end of the day, it's all a JOB - bending wires, mowing down teeth, shucking teeth.

 

[Supernova2008]

If you don't mind...What dental school did you attend ?

Class rank 10/93
Part 1: 95
Part 2: 92
lots of research, good rapport (I thought) with faculty at my school and responsibilities within the ortho. program training other dental students with our ortho. research protocol.

 

[orthopls]

griffin...
i am not the one who started the comparison between ortho and general dentistry. i enjoy general dentistry and find it to be a very rewarding profession and will be VERY proud of my dental degree. but i like the inherent nature of ortho and what it has to offer. the fact that you automatically assume that this means i don't think general dentistry has much to offer is a projection of your own feelings (see your own thinking on general dentistry, be it in private practice or gpr). i like the mechanical aspect of ortho and treatment planning. it suits who i am.

Thinking quick on your feet is a personality trait which ALL professions seek. It doesn't matter that it takes 2-3 years to do an ortho case. Whether you're interviewing for partner in a law firm, a medical or dental residency, or investment banker, interviewers try and find well-rounded people who can react quickly to anything that comes their way. It's a sign of well-roundedness and the very perspective which we both agree is important. I just don't think that one needs to be rejected as a newbie to gain that perspective. I never said reapplicants don't have perspective. I said that they don't necessarily have more of it. Thinking "i hope i get into ortho" when presented with a hard day in general dentistry is not perspective. It's a cop-out. Perspective would have been saying, "i hope i get into ortho, but if it doesn't work out this year, I'm going to conquer general dentistry until i get into a program." Doesn't mean you'd give up on ortho. It means that you're make the best of anything life throws your way. That's perspective.

As far as board scores and GPAs, I'd like to hear of a better way for programs to find the smartest, hardest working applicants. Intelligence and hard work lead to high board scores and high GPAs. Didn't think I'd ever have to argue that a meritocracy is a fair system.

 

[gryffindor]

Perspective would have been saying, "i hope i get into ortho, but if it doesn't work out this year, I'm going to conquer general dentistry until i get into a program." Doesn't mean you'd give up on ortho. It means that you're make the best of anything life throws your way. That's perspective.

This is very easy to say, much harder to do. To pursue a career in GP, I would like to start seeing my own patients and building a practice. It's hard to do that when you are unsure from July 1, 2005 - Nov. 30, 2005 if you will match into ortho. Hence I chose to be an independent contractor/locum tenens for that time period, although this is not the route I would do if GP was to be my career. If you do match, it means you are now going to have to abandon your patients and practice as you go off to school for 3 more years. If you don't match, then you keep on going with your practice. But as a GP, you still have to show in your interviews why you want to pursue ortho, or else why are you bothering to pursue it if your practice as a GP is so great?

True - getting good grades is a sign of hard work, that you put in the extra hours to strive for the A instead of settling for a C. People who don't have 95s can be well rounded and have all the noble reasons for wanting to pursue ortho and would make great orthodontists, but they won't get noticed because of the competitive nature of the field. There really isn't too much better of a way to pick the "best" candidates when there are hundred of applications.

A little bit of disagreement and debate always makes for more interesting conversation.

 

[Surfs up]

As far as board scores and GPAs, I'd like to hear of a better way for programs to find the smartest, hardest working applicants.

A TON of 95+, top 10 applicants don't match, and it's not due to bad personalities. How do you respond to that?

 

[jpollei]

A TON of 95+, top 10 applicants don't match, and it's not due to bad personalities. How do you respond to that?

You can't respond to that. You're dead on--it's essentially a crap shoot at that point. There just aren't enough seats for all of "the smartest, hardest working applicants." Sure there may be a few that apply that don't fit that bill, but a ton do. And in reality there's probably not much those applicants could do better of their own accord. (Seriously, no one should feel like they have to retake boards to go from a 94 to a 98...that's inane.) Especially as they'd all likely make good orthodontists.

 

[aphistis]

I'm not a denturist or applying to denturist school. However, the emotional part of me says that a denturist, not matter how well-trained in denture fabrication, can never be as competent as a dentist.

Then a logical part of me steps in and says that's a bunch of bull.

wonderfully analogous isn't it. an orthodontist is an orthodontist, a dentist doing orthodontics is just that. no matter how you slice it.

Not really. The difference between a general dentist and an orthodontist is two years' worth of post-doctorate work. The dentist is already trained to diagnose & treat, and the ortho residency simply refines that ability within that segment of the profession. A denturist is just a puffed-up lab tech.

 

[WestCoast]

And where exactly in ortho do you have to "think on your feet" - you have 2 to 3 YEARS to finish a treatment plan.

HAHAHA. I couldn't agree more!!

 

[Jone]

and the same holds true for getting into a pre-doc program. DAT scores and high GPA's galore in my class, but tell you, for about one-third of my classmates, I would never trust them to put a handpiece in my mouth!!!

True - getting good grades is a sign of hard work, that you put in the extra hours to strive for the A instead of settling for a C. ...[snipped] There really isn't too much better of a way to pick the "best" candidates when there are hundred of applications.

 

[ItsGavinC]

wonderfully analogous isn't it.

Mmmmkay.

 

[jpollei]

Orthodontists have surprisingly high malpractice rates (here in NC, and generally throuhgout the nation) as compared to most areas of dentistry...only implants and sedation are higher. One of the big reasons cited is because although very rarely something goes wrong with ortho, when it does it usually really goes wrong. As such, the settlements end up being pretty large (again, I'm speaking from what we were told by a medmal guy for the biggest dental malpractice insurer here in NC).
The ironic part he told me was that one of the primary factors attorneys look at when determining whether to take an ortho related suit is whether a specialist or generalist did the treatment. Apparently they hesitate to touch specialist cases, but like GP cases. In a court/jury's eyes, lack of specialty training appears to be equated to lack of ability...right or wrong.

Plus, there's what Tarheel posted earlier about ADA ethics/professionalism. Bottom line:
-If you don't do a specialty, you don't advertise as a specialist in any form (i.e. no "practice limited to..."; that said, word of mouth is going to be the biggest boon to practice growth anyways)
-Make sure you CYA...especially if a GP doing ortho...to preclude any suits
-Regardless of whether you are a GP or specialist, refer if it's over your head. (And yes, some specialists do refer to other specialists)

 

[orthopls]

A TON of 95+, top 10 applicants don't match, and it's not due to bad personalities. How do you respond to that?

I'll respond when you present me with stats that corroborate that statement. Sure there are some 95+, top 10 applicants that don't match. But my guess would be it's not "A TON" and probably not more than 10% of them. And when you consider how few there are in that category to start, it doesn't leave many unmatched.

As far as personality, I think that many fail to realize that it's not just a matter of not having a "bad personality." Programs aren't merely looking for people who aren't jerks. They are looking for sociable, outgoing people. I met a lot of people on interviews (having gone to 12 of them). I'd say almost everyone I met seemed perfectly nice. But let me tell you, some seemed like pretty uninteresting (pronounced, boring) people. If you're at a program's social event or even during the down time of an interview day, and you can't get a conversation going past "where are you from? what dental school do you go to?", well then, don't expect too much out of the match.

When the average ortho program interviews about 30-40 people for 4-6 spots, it's not just a matter of NOT making a BAD impression, it's a matter of making a GOOD one.

All that having been said, I'm not generalizing about all those who don't match. Like I said, I met griffin at one interview. Not only did she seem nice, we conversed well and had I matched at Vanderbilt, I think we'd make good friends as co-residents. I can't explain why an applicant like her doesn't match twice. It sucks, and if I were in her shoes, I would be very frustrated. What I am saying, however, is that although an imperfect system, match works most of the time. Again, little consolation for those who don't match (whether they deserve to or not), but I challenge someone to think of a better system for a profession with so many applicants for such a small number of positions. If you convert to a regular application system such as that for dental school, THAT would be when the 95+, top applicants would be sitting on multiple ACCEPTANCE offers while all the rest would be frantically checking their mailboxes (electronic, voice, or postal) waiting for INTERVIEW offers.

I understand that bitching and moaning and venting one's frustrations can be very therapeutic. (Just ask my wife over the past 3.5 years of dental school. ) But my whole point when I replied to the original post was simple, "Don't hate the player, hate the game." Let's not project the imperfections of the match system onto all the very qualified people who DO match.

 

[DcS]

I can't remember if this has been mentioned yet in this thread, but if so I apologize for the repeat post. I'm surprised no one has mentioned how important who you know is when applying for ortho. We live in a world where it's ever more important to have certain connections. How does a school differentiate between a huge group of overly qualified applicants? In most cases I would think they go with the ones they know already. It's not to say that it's always like that, but I think a lot of times it is. As an applicant you have no idea who the other applicants know at the program, family, friends, etc etc. In some cases, applying at your own dental school may even hurt your chances to get in. After all, if they know you that well after 4 years, they may see things that they don't want in their program...which may have been the case this year with some people.

 

[Surfs up]

As far as board scores and GPAs, I'd like to hear of a better way for programs to find the smartest, hardest working applicants. Intelligence and hard work lead to high board scores and high GPAs. Didn't think I'd ever have to argue that a meritocracy is a fair system.

Orthopls, you mentioned that all it takes is high boards & ranks and you will have a 90% chance of getting in. EVERYBODY at the ortho interview has high boards & ranks, yet only half match. It is true that it's about who you know in a lot of cases, so it's important to start "smoozing" if you are a newbie w/ good #s applying for next year.

 

[Surfs up]

.

 

[orthopls]

Orthopls, you mentioned that all it takes is high boards & ranks and you will have a 90% chance of getting in. EVERYBODY at the ortho interview has high boards & ranks, yet only half match. It is true that it's about who you know in a lot of cases, so it's important to start "smoozing" if you are a newbie w/ good #s applying for next year.

No. I didn't say all it takes is high boards and ranks. What I did say is that if I were to guess (conjecture, yes, but so was your assumption that "A TON" of 95+ don't match), about 90% of people with 95+ AND top rank probably match. Yes, EVERYBODY at interview has HIGH boards or ranks. NOT everybody has EXCEPTIONAL boards (95+) AND top rank. If you have 95+, top rank in dental school, and are a charming,well-rounded person, it is VERY likely that you will match. PERIOD.

I cannot guess as to other people's connections or lack thereof. I can tell you that I had NONE. I had ONE ortho letter of rec, and I basically had to beg for that. I knew NOONE at any of the other programs.

For those of you who think that numbers don't matter once you get to the interview, you are sorely mistaken. The FIRST thing I heard at 5 of my 12 interviews was "Your numbers are very impressive. You will get in wherever you want. It's a matter of how highly you rank US." And that was from the "more competitive" programs. To me, it seemed like the "less competitive" programs (if there is such a thing in ortho) were not as enthusiastic about me because they figured I'd be matching at the more competitive programs.

I do NOT mean to sound arrogant or cocky. I'm just letting future applicants know that it is not like program directors pick names from a damn hat. I don't deny that politics and connections help. They help in all aspects of life unfortunately. However, if you get 98 boards and top class rank, and can hold an intelligent conversation at interview, you will match regardless of whether or not you have connections. Easier said than done, but that is what separates such candidates from the rest of the herd.

 

[TKD]

I've read several posts commenting on how most of the other interviewees had such nice and great personalities, outgoing, fun, etc. Blaaah....during my interviews I'd say over half the other interviewees seemed ultra-competitive (know how many times I felt like saying why the f do you want to know my board scores???...I actually started telling ppl. different board scores for the heck of it...should've seen the dude when i told him 78 Several had oversized egos. Now, many can be forgiven, or at least understood because we gotta be competitive to get certain scores (although many of 95+'ers are actually very humble and unassuming - a couple in my class you'd never know). So probably the biggest bad impression: many were just flat out annoying. Another problem is just trying too freaking hard to put on some artificial act. I witnessed a "discussion" between 3 interviewees and all they seemed to be doing was trying to one-up each other's programs. Damn give it up. Oh and lastly, that deer-in-headlights look...priceless. I'm actually quite concerned about my future relationship with co-residents.
OK my rant is over.

 

[jpollei]

I actually started telling ppl. different board scores for the heck of it...should've seen the dude when i told him 78

Dang, wish I'd thought of that first. That'd be hillarious to do this to many of the people I met...and probably would've been funny to watch my face, too, if I heard the same thing.

 

[Jediwendell]

I'll respond when you present me with stats that corroborate that statement. Sure there are some 95+, top 10 applicants that don't match. But my guess would be it's not "A TON" and probably not more than 10% of them.

All 25 we interviewed at my program had those stats or better. Most places interview some stellar people. If you look at the match stats, only fifty percent match, and really only the best applicants get interviews. I say more like 50% of people with those kinds of stats don't match, but that is just an educated guess going on what sort of applicants I have seen. I also looked at the stats of the people that we didn't interview over the last five years or so, and there were a TON of people that were 95+ top tenners.

 

[IZZYDEDYET]

A TON of 95+, top 10 applicants don't match, and it's not due to bad personalities. How do you respond to that?

Surfs up is one of those people who has a high board score but lets call it a "different" personality. Did you match the first time around TrojanDDS...um I mean Surfs up?

 

[orthopls]

All 25 we interviewed at my program had those stats or better. Most places interview some stellar people. If you look at the match stats, only fifty percent match, and really only the best applicants get interviews. I say more like 50% of people with those kinds of stats don't match, but that is just an educated guess going on what sort of applicants I have seen. I also looked at the stats of the people that we didn't interview over the last five years or so, and there were a TON of people that were 95+ top tenners.

But your program only interviews 25 people, and those are probably the same people that get many other interviews. They may not match at your program, but I'll bet you that they match somewhere. Several of the competitive programs say it in their presentations, "In the past, the applicants we interview match somewhere. It may not be here, but being here is a good sign you will match."

So Jediwendell, you tell me, over the past 5 years and 125 interviewees, how many have not matched at ANY programs? I'd venture to guess less than 12 (10% as I stated in my previous posts). Let me also add a caveat to my argument. I am assuming that applicants apply to at least 10 programs. I understand that some applicants are bound geographically because of other obligations, primarily family, but obviously, someone who only applies to 3-4 programs is not as likely to match.

 

[Doggie]

And where exactly in ortho do you have to "think on your feet"

I can think of a few things.........

1) what to do in case the rubber band snaps off the bracket and hits your assistant's eyes.
2) what to do in case the assistants bond themselves to the brackets.
3) what to do if patients ask for dental wax and you realize that you've ran out.
4) what to do when you are bored just sitting around while your assistants change rubber bands.

 

[gryffindor]

For those of you who think that numbers don't matter once you get to the interview, you are sorely mistaken. The FIRST thing I heard at 5 of my 12 interviews was "Your numbers are very impressive. You will get in wherever you want. It's a matter of how highly you rank US." And that was from the "more competitive" programs. To me, it seemed like the "less competitive" programs (if there is such a thing in ortho) were not as enthusiastic about me because they figured I'd be matching at the more competitive programs.

This means nothing. Your numbers way outshine mine, and even I got the "your numbers are good, why do you think you haven't matched?" routine at multiple programs. I stopped believing everything anyone said because unless it is in writing, it means nothing. One place said "if you got an interview last year, of course you'll be called again." Guess what - no reinvite from that program. If the "less competitive" programs aren't enthusiastic about you because they think a top program will take you - what if the top programs figure that you aren't going to go there because of geographic ties to a lessser program, so they don't rank you very high either. Now no one wants you and you attain urban legend status as an applicant - "I know this guy who had 12 invites and didn't match!" (Sadly it happens ) I think programs are clueless about match sometime because you really don't ever sit down to think about it unless forced to (unmatched candidates) - which never happens to the programs since they always fill (500 enter match, only 250 spots available) and post-match is rare.

BTW, I interviewed at Jedi's program during one of my unsuccesful years.

But really, applicants would ask you guys boards scores??? No one ever asked me that, I guess they just assumed I was an idiot if I didn't match once and even stupider seeing as I didn't match twice, with multiple invites each time. Actually, I usually never mentioned the reapplicant thing unless someone brought it up because you don't know what people will assume. The usual assumption was that I was a newbie like everyone else, then when I'd say "I already graduated," the assumption became that I had decided on doing ortho somewhere after graduation. Mentioning I was a reapplicant usually got me strange looks unless it was from the residents who had gone through the reapplicant process - those people definitely understood. Orthopls is convinced that if you have a 95+, top rank, well rounded and are charming, you are in somewhere. And I am convinced there are many other succesful candidates who think like that too, so it is dangerous what people assume about those who don't make it.

TKD, I totally agree about the oversized egos, artificial acts, and deer in headlights look! At one interview, a candidate was giving the resident his background story. Then at a different interview, the same candidate was telling a resident his background, but changed all the pertinent details of the story! I didn't know which version to believe, but the residents & programs don't know he is going around telling different programs different things. And he matched, so maybe he knew what he was doing.

Oh this will be so interesting next year from the OTHER side of the fence....

 

[DcS]

Why don't you guys just give up, you'll never agree. This thread only furthers the stigma behind applying for ortho and the type of people that do so.

 

[Doggie]

Oh this will be so interesting next year from the OTHER side of the fence....

It sure is very relieving know that you are in, isnt it? Again, congrats....

 

[kato999]

But your program only interviews 25 people, and those are probably the same people that get many other interviews. They may not match at your program, but I'll bet you that they match somewhere. Several of the competitive programs say it in their presentations, "In the past, the applicants we interview match somewhere. It may not be here, but being here is a good sign you will match."

So Jediwendell, you tell me, over the past 5 years and 125 interviewees, how many have not matched at ANY programs? I'd venture to guess less than 12 (10% as I stated in my previous posts). Let me also add a caveat to my argument. I am assuming that applicants apply to at least 10 programs. I understand that some applicants are bound geographically because of other obligations, primarily family, but obviously, someone who only applies to 3-4 programs is not as likely to match.

I would have to agree simply because of the approximately 4000 people that take the NBDE a year, Less than 5% score above a 95. If all those folks apply to ortho (unlikely, but it does almost seem that way), there would still only be around 200 predocs with 95+ scores applying to ortho. If you get 95+ you are far from gauranteed anything. However, I would think the odds tend to be in your favor.

 

[orthopls]

Orthopls is convinced that if you have a 95+, top rank, well rounded and are charming, you are in somewhere. And I am convinced there are many other succesful candidates who think like that too, so it is dangerous what people assume about those who don't make it.

You keep putting words in my mouth. Your logic is warped. You did it once before in your comparison of ortho and gp. And you're doing it now in comparing those who match to those who don't match.

If p=good, that does NOT mean that q=bad. That's your logic, not mine.

 

[gryffindor]

...If you have 95+, top rank in dental school, and are a charming,well-rounded person, it is VERY likely that you will match. PERIOD.

...However, if you get 98 boards and top class rank, and can hold an intelligent conversation at interview, you will match regardless of whether or not you have connections. Easier said than done, but that is what separates such candidates from the rest of the herd.

Umm, you said it, twice. I didn't think I was making stuff up.

 

[orthopls]

Umm, you said it, twice. I didn't think I was making stuff up.

no. there is a difference between what i said and what you are accusing me of saying. nowhere did i say that the ONLY people that match are 95+, top rank, well-rounded,etc. What I did say was that a candidate with ALL those things is very likely to match. Two things are beyond me:
1. That you deny that such a candidate is indeed exceptional.
and
2. How you manage to translate that to some "danger" as to what people think of those who don't match.

Did you see the post by kato999? Do you ignore that logic too? To the non-ortho world, who cares about the difference between a 92 and a 96. But in the ortho admissions world, there are fewer people with a 96 than there are people with a 92. That applicant stands out more and is more likely to match. That doesn't mean that the 92 applicant isn't a great person who deserves to match. I'm not arguing that, but yet you insist that's case. I challenge you to quote anything from my posts which indicates otherwise.

Answer me this: Given that you are a sociable person, do you think you would've matched as a newbie if you had a 99 and were #1 in your class? If your answer is yes, then you agree with what I've been saying. If your answer is no, we can agree to disagree. But that still doesn't give you the right to accuse me of being condescending.

I hate to say it, but I think these past couple of years have made you develop a complex over this. Program directors, residents, and other applicants aren't sitting at home taking pleasure in your misfortune of not matching twice. GET OVER IT! Sheesh. I have good friends who have not matched with 92's and 93's and it sucks. I think no less of them or how qualified I think they are. I refuse to let you argue that this is the case. Perhaps you have met a few people who do feel that way, but don't generalize about the rest of us. You really are going to have a miserable time as an orthodontist if you think all of your colleagues look down on you.

 

[gryffindor]

I give up. If you have a 95+, top rank, and are sociable, yes, you are likely to match.

But if you have all that stuff and don't match, you'll know what I was trying to say.

 

[dentalgent06]

My killer GRE didn't help much...

sorry to hear your GRE score didnt help you much even though it rocked

anyway, i have some questions since i'm a reapplicant who never took the GREs (for the sole reason that I had no idea that any schools required it) so, is the GRE i need to take "the general test"? I understand the test is scored 200-800 (at least till 0ctober), is that correct? so shoot for an 800 right ? Any advice on how long to devote to preparing for the test and what resources to use?

 

[jpollei]

sorry to hear your GRE score didnt help you much even though it rocked

anyway, i have some questions since i'm a reapplicant who never took the GREs (for the sole reason that I had no idea that any schools required it) so, is the GRE i need to take "the general test"? I understand the test is scored 200-800 (at least till 0ctober), is that correct? so shoot for an 800 right ? Any advice on how long to devote to preparing for the test and what resources to use?

It is the general test you want...it has verbal, quantitative and writing sections. Not all programs require it, though many of those offering an MS (or derevation thereof) do.
It's a lot like studying for the SAT/ACT verbal all over again, and the DAT quantitative. As for the writing, well, I got a 5.5/6 and consider myself a poor writer--so that part seems to be a crapshoot. In all, I'd say I studied about 20-25 hours skimming the Kaplan book and browsing their practice cd-rom. I did ok (1380?), and don't think studying more would have netted me a better score. A lot of it--especially the verbal--seems to be luck of the draw...getting words you happen to know or have studied, or passages where the topic is familiar. I really think we'd all do better if we took it before we started dental school.
Good luck to you.

 

[dentalgent06]

It is the general test you want...it has verbal, quantitative and writing sections. Not all programs require it, though many of those offering an MS (or derevation thereof) do.
It's a lot like studying for the SAT/ACT verbal all over again, and the DAT quantitative. As for the writing, well, I got a 5.5/6 and consider myself a poor writer--so that part seems to be a crapshoot. In all, I'd say I studied about 20-25 hours skimming the Kaplan book and browsing their practice cd-rom. I did ok (1380?), and don't think studying more would have netted me a better score. A lot of it--especially the verbal--seems to be luck of the draw...getting words you happen to know or have studied, or passages where the topic is familiar. I really think we'd all do better if we took it before we started dental school.
Good luck to you.

Thanks so much for the info! It really helped me put the test in perspective.....I had no idea if this was a test that takes a few months to study for or if it just takes some cracking down for a weekend or 2..since SATs/DATs...have always been my thing, sounds like the latter will do. guess we'll see. anyway, thanks again

 

[Tooth]

Man, this thread makes orthodontists look horrible. It makes them look like a bunch of arrogant, elitist, skull and bones lovin', narcissists. I could really hate on people like this. I mean, everyone says all the "other" applicants are like this and that. Wow. Screw orthodontists. I'm determined to keep as much in house as possible.

 

[cuneatus2]

Man, this thread makes orthodontists look horrible. It makes them look like a bunch of arrogant, elitist, skull and bones lovin', narcissists. I could really hate on people like this. I mean, everyone says all the "other" applicants are like this and that. Wow. Screw orthodontists. I'm determined to keep as much in house as possible.

O

 

[vorosvirag]

Man, this thread makes orthodontists look horrible. It makes them look like a bunch of arrogant, elitist, skull and bones lovin', narcissists. I could really hate on people like this. I mean, everyone says all the "other" applicants are like this and that. Wow. Screw orthodontists. I'm determined to keep as much in house as possible.

Relax, buddy. It's a competitive specialty. Some people lose perspective and others are just thinking through all the various parameters. Much of this thread was neutral info and general tips. Everyone was not saying "all the "other" applicants are like this and that." "Hate on them" if you want. Some will hate specialists or other GPs no matter how nice these folks are because of $, lifestyle, or something else. All these guys can't please you.

Most of us aren't elitist and didn't attend Yale or any Ivy League school. We worked hard for a long time to achieve a goal. Most of us aren't any brighter than our peers. Just average people who were determined.

Have you read what the OMFS guys say every day? It can get pretty rank. So, are you going to keep all your surgery in house, too? Not likely. Without advanced training, you'd be insane to try what they routinely do.

Your line of reasoning can't apply to many situations. Despising entire groups of people because of some bad behavior of a few is not totally rational. Trying to do specialists' work because a few disappointed you is pretty elementary.

 

[QCkid]

I gotta be honest. After reading through this thread, I'm a little freaked out. I was planning on applying to about 18 programs but after reading all this, I may have to rethink that.

 

[Jyaki]

What I realized during the interview process was that a lot of the applicants not only had great numbers, but also had the "plus alpha" factor. By that I mean factors such as: a Masters, PhD, have been doing research with the director for the past year, have parents that are alumni of the school and are large donors and those with military experience. It's much more than simply good grades and when everyone is competing for such few spots, everything matters. When they ask you "Why should we pick you instead of the other 25" or "What makes you unique and special compared to other applicants" be sure to have a good answer ready.

 

[hainz]

hey guys .. could anyone tell me what is Match?

 

[Jamesxxixx45]

So, as a "newbie" who matched, I take offense to this post.

#1. The term in and of itself is condescending.
#2. Remove yourself from your bitterness long enough to realize that maybe it isn't so much that all these newbies are lucky, but that the reapplicants are unlucky.
#3. If your approach to the profession begins with such resentment toward most of your colleagues, you're going to have a miserable time.

The match is not a perfect system by far, but I hope you'd agree that there are many more people who DO match that deserve to match than there are people who DON'T match who are qualified. Little consolation for those qualified folks who don't match, but blame it on an imperfect system and not the others who make it into the system.


We've actually met. You seem like a nice person, and knowing your stats through SDN, I hoped that you would match this time around, and I'm still glad that you did, but please, leave the resentment in your past.

@gryffindor Current applicant scanning these forums and I agree with this, to anyone reapplying who is also scanning these forums you shouldn't have such resentment towards the field you want to work in. These will be your future colleagues.

 

[gryffindor]

@gryffindor Current applicant scanning these forums and I agree with this, to anyone reapplying who is also scanning these forums you shouldn't have such resentment towards the field you want to work in. These will be your future colleagues.

This post is 17 years old.

I still have nightmares about ortho match. That's how horrible the experience was.

 

[Jamesxxixx45]

This post is 17 years old.

I still have nightmares about ortho match. That's how horrible the experience was.

Pretty good experience for me so far and everyone I've met has been nice and friendly