Your GPA

[DoubleDMD]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Not that anyone here is part of any ADCOM, but how do dental schools standardize your gpa, or do they not? Additionally, do dental schools look higher upon students that attend the more prestigious schools? For example, earning a C+ in organic chemistry at UPenn undergraduate might have taken the same or even more work and effort than earning a B or an A at another, less prestegious/competitive school. Or is this where the DAT comes into play in order to standardize all applicants? Anyone...

 

[onetoothleft]

Not that anyone here is part of any ADCOM, but how do dental schools standardize your gpa, or do they not? Additionally, do dental schools look higher upon students that attend the more prestigious schools? For example, earning a C+ in organic chemistry at UPenn undergraduate might have taken the same or even more work and effort than earning a B or an A at another, less prestegious/competitive school. Or is this where the DAT comes into play in order to standardize all applicants? Anyone...

ADCOMs take all of what you said into consideration. They tend to lean toward the guy with the higher GPA regardless of school, unless it was a community college . . . even then it is better to have an A there than a C at UPenn.

It also depends on the ADCOM obviously. Some use formulas that cannot/do not take into effect things like where you went to school or what your course load was like. The GPA is not standardized except on AADSAS. I guess you could say they are converted, rather than standardized to a 4.0 scale. Some schools will tier your school, so you can get a benefit that way.

 

[hawk52]

ADCOMs take all of what you said into consideration. They tend to lean toward the guy with the higher GPA regardless of school, unless it was a community college . . . even then it is better to have an A there than a C at UPenn.

It also depends on the ADCOM obviously. Some use formulas that cannot/do not take into effect things like where you went to school or what your course load was like. The GPA is not standardized except on AADSAS. I guess you could say they are converted, rather than standardized to a 4.0 scale. Some schools will tier your school, so you can get a benefit that way.

They probably dont like to look at indicidual courses like this because, just because you are a some top school, dosent mean that you are going to learn more. For instance, you will learn about the same thing at any school in organic. Most likely, you will use the same/simular book and have a professor that is just as good at commuticating. Some highly touted profs are highly touted due to research, not teaching.

 

[I AM SARA]

ADCOMs take all of what you said into consideration. They tend to lean toward the guy with the higher GPA regardless of school, unless it was a community college . . . even then it is better to have an A there than a C at UPenn.

It also depends on the ADCOM obviously. Some use formulas that cannot/do not take into effect things like where you went to school or what your course load was like. The GPA is not standardized except on AADSAS. I guess you could say they are converted, rather than standardized to a 4.0 scale. Some schools will tier your school, so you can get a benefit that way.

That community college is so untrue.

There are plenty of people that have community college degrees that go to med and dental school.

Please.

 

[Dental08?09]

I know some people on the admission. Some say an IVY leauge is better, others say it makes no difference.

Its all a luck of the draw and it really depends on who interviews you. You could have a 24 DAT 3.8 GPA, but you look like the guys wife or the ladies husband. They wanted to get laid the night before and didn't, and you REMIND them of that person and they deny you admission.

Sounds crazy...think again because sometimes just because the admin is in a bad mood will affect the decesion they make.

Life is not fair, oh well.

 

[r0entgen]

They probably dont like to look at indicidual courses like this because, just because you are a some top school, dosent mean that you are going to learn more. For instance, you will learn about the same thing at any school in organic. Most likely, you will use the same/simular book and have a professor that is just as good at commuticating. Some highly touted profs are highly touted due to research, not teaching.

not true...

the general concepts in organic, yes, you'll learn at any school..but the top schools are more competitive, and as a result, the exams are more competitive...therefore, we need to go beyond the general concepts, and have to apply them to more complex problems...that's what the difference is...and as a result of this, students at the top schools usually are trained to think in a more analytical manner. basically, most of the more prestigious schools are research-based..and professors there train you to think like researchers via the exams administered.

 

[Dental08?09]

basically, most of the more prestigious schools are research-based..and professors there train you to think like researchers via the exams administered.

Which my friend is not exactly a good thing either.

And by the way, no matter what school you go to, orgo I and II and general....duh! Those are intro courses to bigger badder things.

I have an IVY education and my brother has a state education. Both of us had the same crap in orgo I and II and the tests were just as damn hard.

The big difference between IVY and state school, I have more debt and bragging rights. Thats about it.

 

[Cantstandya]

Some pointed out that one would learn the same thing at a prestigious school as they would at a less prestigious school and that is completely accurate; however, what makes the difference is the testing. I went to a some what prestigious school and I took a Biochem. course at a Cal State U. this summer and let me tell you, it was a joke. Yeah, we learned the same stuff, but the exams were trivial. Therefore, from my experience one will learn the same stuff but be tested completely differently. One more thing, there was no curve in the biochem class so you don't have to compete and an 85% was an A. Ha! Ended up with an A in Biochem, but at my university I could barely get B's with all of the competition

 

[DoubleDMD]

The quality of education is definitely MUCH better at an ivy league school vs. tier 2 and 3 schools. Yes, the textbook might be the same for some classes and yes the pages will same the same thing, but the level of expected comprehension(not even to begin to get into the level of competition) is uncomparable between the two types of schools. In fact, the DAT probably serves to alleviate some of the dispute. That is why (yet not always) you see people post a low 3 gpa yet an AA DAT score above 20 and people with a very high 3 gpa and an AA DAT score of 18 or 19.

 

[I AM SARA]

Some pointed out that one would learn the same thing at a prestigious school as they would at a less prestigious school and that is completely accurate; however, what makes the difference is the testing. I went to a some what prestigious school and I took a Biochem. course at a Cal State U. this summer and let me tell you, it was a joke. Yeah, we learned the same stuff, but the exams were trivial. Therefore, from my experience one will learn the same stuff but be tested completely differently. One more thing, there was no curve in the biochem class so you don't have to compete and an 85% was an A. Ha! Ended up with an A in Biochem, but at my university I could barely get B's with all of the competition

Not to be rude sweetie, but if an A was a 85%

THAT IS A CURVE.

duh!

 

[larrry]

I know some people on the admission. Some say an IVY leauge is better, others say it makes no difference.

Its all a luck of the draw and it really depends on who interviews you. You could have a 24 DAT 3.8 GPA, but you look like the guys wife or the ladies husband. They wanted to get laid the night before and didn't, and you REMIND them of that person and they deny you admission.

Sounds crazy...think again because sometimes just because the admin is in a bad mood will affect the decesion they make.

Life is not fair, oh well.

this is fate.

 

[r0entgen]

Which my friend is not exactly a good thing either.

And by the way, no matter what school you go to, orgo I and II and general....duh! Those are intro courses to bigger badder things.

I have an IVY education and my brother has a state education. Both of us had the same crap in orgo I and II and the tests were just as damn hard.

The big difference between IVY and state school, I have more debt and bragging rights. Thats about it.

well, i don't know what ivy YOU went to...but i attend washington university in st louis, and that isn't even an ivy...and i've also taken a few classes at univ. of texas at arlington, and let me tell you, i was making perfect scores on all the organic chemistry exams there...

uta's exams were basically regurgitation...very little thinking was required...

in my other pre-dental classes at wash u, i can tell you i didn't make perfect scores, and had to think a hell of a lot harder on the exams...

 

[briansle]

Not to be rude sweetie, but if an A was a 85%

THAT IS A CURVE.

duh!

Not to be rude, you idiot dumb****. But its not a curve.

Read what he said, the cutoff for an A was 85%. That means if all 20 people in his class got 85%'s - then all 20 people get A's.

In a curved class, one student's gain is another student's loss because only a certain top % of the class can recieve A's (usually the top 15%). In this case, all the professor did was shift the cutoffs - not curve the class.

 

[Cantstandya]

Thank you Briansle. At least one person understood what I was talking about. Curves create competition. Setting an A at 85% is creating a standard scale in which everyone has the ability to obtain an A, unlike classes where only the top 11% can get an A. If you are unfamiliar with this type of grading system, then chances are you probably didn't go to a very competitive school. Enough said

 

[Mustt Mustt]

not true...

the general concepts in organic, yes, you'll learn at any school..but the top schools are more competitive, and as a result, the exams are more competitive...therefore, we need to go beyond the general concepts, and have to apply them to more complex problems...that's what the difference is...and as a result of this, students at the top schools usually are trained to think in a more analytical manner. basically, most of the more prestigious schools are research-based..and professors there train you to think like researchers via the exams administered.

What u saying is wrong. Biochem at my school is supposed to be the hardest class becasue the avg. grade is 2.7 and its a 3xx level class. it's so hard that avg. is usually 45%. Most people in class don't know anything about the the class after they are done. I got an A in the class and I have very little knowledge of Biochem becasue I studied for the exams not to learn the material. It's not about how much u learn, is about how many people can u beat in your respective class. Hard class has nothing to do with amount of material u learn. Also, the bigger name the school has the ****tier the professors. Most profs. are at the big school becasue they want to do resarch and big name schools have more money. Very few professors at Big university like teaching. It's hard to justify any GPA in the system we have and that is why they have standardized exams like GMAT, LSAT, MCAT, PCAT, DAT etc. to test all students on the same material to standardize the GPA.

 

[Mustt Mustt]

Thank you Briansle. At least one person understood what I was talking about. Curves create competition. Setting an A at 85% is creating a standard scale in which everyone has the ability to obtain an A, unlike classes where only the top 11% can get an A. If you are unfamiliar with this type of grading system, then chances are you probably didn't go to a very competitive school. Enough said

I understand your point about beating people in class so you are at the top to get an A. But that doesn't say anything about the candidate. It's about how that specific class was. Usually on those scales you get 90% in one exam and u are guaranteed an A becasue the avg. is usually in the 50% and u learn less material than the standard scale. From my personal experience I took orgo I at the CC and got 3.5/4.0 and I took Orgo II at my university I got 3.7(A-)/4.0. now only in one exam I had score above avg. and two exams I had score around avg. Becasue everybody did so bad in the first exam and I had 42% above the avg. i got a good grade and didn;t work that hard for last two exams. I learned way more in my Orgo I class than in my Orgo II class becasue I consistently had to score 85% to get good grade and no the exams werent that easy. I think we are missing the point here. We go to school to learn the material not to get A's or good grades at these big name universities by beatng other students in the curve. It is out of our control and there is nothing u can do but get good grades becasue people don't care how much material you learned.

 

[larrry]

my school doesnt have a curve. 85%=A in any class. and some classes have averages like A- while some classes have it at C, depends on the professor and the students.. By the way what textbook do you all use for biochemistry? I used lodish textbook for cell bio and cell metabolism, and i dont know whether i should take biochemistry next, or just do some bio courses.

 

[Cantstandya]

mustt mustt, I understand your point, but I believe you're missing mine. The only point I was trying to make is that the material is the same whether you go to Stanford or Cal State Long Beach, but the caliber of students and the level of expectation is much different. Therefore, exams vary from college to college. However, I digressed when I was first trying to make the point that there are colleges that are easier than others eventhough students learn the same material. A set scale is much easier because there is no competition.

 

[Mustt Mustt]

my school doesnt have a curve. 85%=A in any class. and some classes have averages like A- while some classes have it at C, depends on the professor and the students.. By the way what textbook do you all use for biochemistry? I used lodish textbook for cell bio and cell metabolism, and i dont know whether i should take biochemistry next, or just do some bio courses.

We used Lehningers's Principle of Biochem by COX and NELSON, fourth Edition, at Michigan. The book is not that good in my opinion but your teacher will tell you that you need to know pages 1-450 for the test I. etc. so you need the book. Biochem sucks so bad that you are constantly thinking about beating the curve than learning Biochem. If you take Biochem it will look good on your application but the material you learn mostly won't stay with you becasue it is just so much. Also, many things you have to memorize in the class has no point in memorizing. I loved cell Bio. My prof was fun and we also used the same book that you used.

 

[Dukie]

There is no doubt the school you attend matters in admisisons. People who I have spoken to on commitees tell me that they do strongly consider where you took your undergraduate courses. Yes, fundamentally, the material is the same. But is taught very differently to a much higher caliber student body at a top college or university. I know that I got in to several schools that others with better GPAs/DAT scores were rejected from. All that said, remember that every school is different and will value different things. Some will weigh GPA heavily, while others rely more on the DAT. Oh, and as to community colleges: I would check with each school. Some strongly discourage or will not even accept prerequisite credits from a 2-year school. Good luck!

 

[r0entgen]

What u saying is wrong. Biochem at my school is supposed to be the hardest class becasue the avg. grade is 2.7 and its a 3xx level class. it's so hard that avg. is usually 45%. Most people in class don't know anything about the the class after they are done. I got an A in the class and I have very little knowledge of Biochem becasue I studied for the exams not to learn the material. It's not about how much u learn, is about how many people can u beat in your respective class. Hard class has nothing to do with amount of material u learn. Also, the bigger name the school has the ****tier the professors. Most profs. are at the big school becasue they want to do resarch and big name schools have more money. Very few professors at Big university like teaching. It's hard to justify any GPA in the system we have and that is why they have standardized exams like GMAT, LSAT, MCAT, PCAT, DAT etc. to test all students on the same material to standardize the GPA.

what school do you go to? i mean, i agree, the professors at the top schools are ****ter because they're into the research, and only teach because they are required to...but it doesn't matter...usually at the top schools, they motivate self-studying...lectures are only there to 'enhance' our knowledge...

although the professors teach worse, they DO know the material, and because they knwo the material, the exams are more challenging...therefore, we need to understand the CONCEPTS behind the material really well...and in order to understand the concepts, we obviously have to have learned something...

i don't know what school you go to where you don't learn anything, but i can tell you at washington university undergrad, the average mcat score is a 30 (most pre-health students there are pre-med), which is wayyyy above average. average mcat score of a medschool student who matriculates is a 28...so you can see students at my school definitely do learn stuff...

 

[Mustt Mustt]

what school do you go to? i mean, i agree, the professors at the top schools are ****ter because they're into the research, and only teach because they are required to...but it doesn't matter...usually at the top schools, they motivate self-studying...lectures are only there to 'enhance' our knowledge...

although the professors teach worse, they DO know the material, and because they knwo the material, the exams are more challenging...therefore, we need to understand the CONCEPTS behind the material really well...and in order to understand the concepts, we obviously have to have learned something...

i don't know what school you go to where you don't learn anything, but i can tell you at washington university undergrad, the average mcat score is a 30 (most pre-health students there are pre-med), which is wayyyy above average. average mcat score of a medschool student who matriculates is a 28...so you can see students at my school definitely do learn stuff...

I go to Michigan. Any way what I was saying is that school has nothing to do with what you learn and you agreed with me. At big schools you are thinking more about getting good score in exam than learning the material. Knowing the material for one exam and learning it to understand better is different. In most Science pre-req classes at theses big schools prof rarely teach what they will put in the exam. It is up to you to learn the material, they don;t care. If I can learn on my own then why am I paying them tuition(if I had to pay). How did Big Name of my school helped me?? It just sucks if you ask me. If i had to do it again would do It differently?? No. why? becasue I need this big name school on my transcript to give me an advantage in graduate school application and getting a job. But I don't think my GPA should be given more weight becasue it is from U of M than anyother person with a same GPA from another school. But to differentiate between the two DAT score or experience should be looked at instead of looking of school attended. Sad thing is that I am not in the ADCOM and this thing is out of my control. This is my personal view. Anyway I am done with discussion in this thread but it was good.

 

[Pikeyman]

Some pointed out that one would learn the same thing at a prestigious school as they would at a less prestigious school and that is completely accurate; however, what makes the difference is the testing. I went to a some what prestigious school and I took a Biochem. course at a Cal State U. this summer and let me tell you, it was a joke. Yeah, we learned the same stuff, but the exams were trivial. Therefore, from my experience one will learn the same stuff but be tested completely differently. One more thing, there was no curve in the biochem class so you don't have to compete and an 85% was an A. Ha! Ended up with an A in Biochem, but at my university I could barely get B's with all of the competition

Let us be the judge of that.

What u saying is wrong. Biochem at my school is supposed to be the hardest class becasue the avg. grade is 2.7 and its a 3xx level class. it's so hard that avg. is usually 45%. Most people in class don't know anything about the the class after they are done. I got an A in the class and I have very little knowledge of Biochem becasue I studied for the exams not to learn the material. It's not about how much u learn, is about how many people can u beat in your respective class. Hard class has nothing to do with amount of material u learn. Also, the bigger name the school has the ****tier the professors. Most profs. are at the big school becasue they want to do resarch and big name schools have more money. Very few professors at Big university like teaching. It's hard to justify any GPA in the system we have and that is why they have standardized exams like GMAT, LSAT, MCAT, PCAT, DAT etc. to test all students on the same material to standardize the GPA.

What a waste. As long as you can make and pick up connections to all the concepts, that should be good regardless of what or how the professors throw at you on the exams. It's like a puzzle. You just have to know where and how things go. I'm stating the obvious. Feel like the biggest butt.

We used Lehningers's Principle of Biochem by COX and NELSON, fourth Edition, at Michigan. The book is not that good in my opinion but your teacher will tell you that you need to know pages 1-450 for the test I. etc. so you need the book. Biochem sucks so bad that you are constantly thinking about beating the curve than learning Biochem. If you take Biochem it will look good on your application but the material you learn mostly won't stay with you becasue it is just so much. Also, many things you have to memorize in the class has no point in memorizing. I loved cell Bio. My prof was fun and we also used the same book that you used.

Same here.

 

[jay228]

stupid thread filled with stupid discussion

 

[joonkimdds]

U guys r scaring me...
I am attending community college right now and have 3.75 total GPA and 4.0 in Science GPA... 🙁
if they treat my GPA low just becuz i came from community college, I will be so sad.

 

[jay228]

U guys r scaring me...
I am attending community college right now and have 3.75 total GPA and 4.0 in Science GPA... 🙁
if they treat my GPA low just becuz i came from community college, I will be so sad.

oh yeah if you're applying straight from a JC, adcoms will definitely take whatever your GPA is with a huge grain of salt.

here's a question: how much do you have to not care about your education to have anything less than a spectacular JC GPA? I mean, I took a few JC classes.. and they were like easier than high school.

 

[cowsgomoo]

So am I to assume that some of the better schools on my list are not going to give the time of day because I went to a supposedly inferior school. I truly don’t get this. I think that you’re DAT score should verify the education you have received. The ADDCOMS are not there to see if you are a worthy candidate just because you graduated from a particular school but rather that you are a worthy candidate based on GPA and DAT alone (academically). I personally chose the school I am attending at the moment due to personal and financial reasons and as a result turned down better schools. I hope my application is taken just as seriously as any other ivy leaguer.
Just my point of view. 😀 😀

 

[I AM SARA]

Not to be rude, you idiot dumb****. But its not a curve.

Read what he said, the cutoff for an A was 85%. That means if all 20 people in his class got 85%'s - then all 20 people get A's.

In a curved class, one student's gain is another student's loss because only a certain top % of the class can recieve A's (usually the top 15%). In this case, all the professor did was shift the cutoffs - not curve the class.

looks like a curve to me!

Think again.

 

[kato999]

So am I to assume that some of the better schools on my list are not going to give the time of day because I went to a supposedly inferior school. I truly don’t get this. I think that you’re DAT score should verify the education you have received. The ADDCOMS are not there to see if you are a worthy candidate just because you graduated from a particular school but rather that you are a worthy candidate based on GPA and DAT alone (academically). I personally chose the school I am attending at the moment due to personal and financial reasons and as a result turned down better schools. I hope my application is taken just as seriously as any other ivy leaguer.
Just my point of view. 😀 😀

Your DAT scores are very strong and will help validate your GPA, but without them, going to a lower tier school will hurt you. Schools like Harvard and UPENN could have avg GPA's of 3.9-4.0 if they wanted. Enough people with those marks apply there. Even lowly Arizona could have a class with a 3.9 avg gpa if they wanted since they got over 3000 apps for 54 spots last year.

However, schools know how students fare from the 4.0 JC to the 3.0 IVY leaguer, so that's why GPA is not calculated the same at every school. Also, undergrad gpa did not have a correlation with our current dental class rankings or scores on NBDE1. Atleast that is what our dean told me.

Just my two cents.

 

[kato999]

looks like a curve to me!

Think again.

the term "curve" comes from the bell curve where the average score or value is in the middle and then based on scores and standard deviations grades are scaled from there.

If there is a percentage that is set before the class begins and is independent of the class performance than it is not a curve. It doesn't matter what the numerical percent is.

 

[Flipper405]

the term "curve" comes from the bell curve where the average score or value is in the middle and then based on scores and standard deviations grades are scaled from there.

If there is a percentage that is set before the class begins and is independent of the class performance than it is not a curve. It doesn't matter what the numerical percent is.

Yes. However, some schools (I have been fortunate enough to have had this definition used as opposed to the true one) will define a curve as just raising everyone's grade by a certain amount. The bell curve is what the "curve" actually is though.

 

[Dental Mom]

.............Its all a luck of the draw and it really depends on who interviews you. You could have a 24 DAT 3.8 GPA, but you look like the guys wife or the ladies husband. They wanted to get laid the night before and didn't, and you REMIND them of that person and they deny you admission.
Life is not fair, oh well.

I'M MARRIED......................THAT IS HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[joonkimdds]

oh yeah if you're applying straight from a JC, adcoms will definitely take whatever your GPA is with a huge grain of salt.

here's a question: how much do you have to not care about your education to have anything less than a spectacular JC GPA? I mean, I took a few JC classes.. and they were like easier than high school.

I am in community college now with 3.75 GPA and 4.0 Science GPA. If i transfer to 4 year institution as soon as i finish my 2nd year, then apply to dental school, I heard that they will take my GPA and calculate my school difficulty level with 4year, not community college.