How do dental schools rank DAT sections in importance?

[yuppers]

Just in general because I know some schools see it differently.
I would think:
1) TS
2) PAT
3) AA
4) RC
5) QR

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[yuppers]

Yea why is it that people always take the PAT so lightly? If I were an adcom, it would definitely be PAT=RC.

Exactly my question, but I guess that we are falsely assuming that adcoms don't look at it. I just remembered doc toothache's thread on 2008 DAT scores and schools, the PAT column is mainly 19s-20s.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=602109

 

[jay47]

Thats interesting. I wonder what their reasoning behind it would be.

Well, they have to decide how students get into specialty residencies somehow right?

Just going by class rank would be like just taking your undergraduate GPA to get into dental school, not always the best idea, especially if you screwed up somewhere along the line.

I actually hope that the boards are still graded by the time we get to school, that way I won't have to worry about taking ANOTHER test should I decide to specialize, I'll just have to study the same one everyone else does.

 

[BillytheEchidna]

But if the studies show that the RC is best correlated with the board scores, then there must be a skill or cognitive function that this section tests for that I am failing to see - someone enlighten me on this. I'm quite interested to know.

I thought the RC section seemed to be testing critical thinking skills way more than the ability to regurgitate facts... I had time to spare and ended up getting a 21. Maybe its clandestine purpose is to weed out people who are actually robots?

 

[doc toothache]

No doubt some ds place emphasis on particular sections of the DAT. It is curious, however, that until recently, when the TS scores were introduced, the only scores typically disseminated through ADEA were AA and PAT.

 

[xylem29]

I thought the RC section seemed to be testing critical thinking skills way more than the ability to regurgitate facts... I had time to spare and ended up getting a 21. Maybe its clandestine purpose is to weed out people who are actually robots?

Now that I think about it, there were a few questions that did require some application of what was read - but even then it was based on a specific paragraph discussing a specific sub-topic.

I don't agree with you about weeding out robots b/c robots would be the ones that would do quite well on the DAT RC. Everything could be found within the passage and some required merely understanding at face value what was written, a few required a bit of thinking but as a test of any real cognitive ability wrt to english, reading and thinking I'm still not convinced. Mind you, I haven't gotten my scores back so I could be completely wrong

Actually, I don't see what the DAT is actually testing for other than someone's ability to dedicate time to the preparation b/c for the science section, it was pretty straight forward with the exception of a few questions that tested whether you were lucky enough to have learned this little known fact during your undergrad eductation. Other than the PAT, I fail to see how it is testing for any true intellectual ability - anyone could do well if they took their preparation seriously.

 

[yuppers]

Well, they have to decide how students get into specialty residencies somehow right?

That's why a p/f would not make sense without a speciality test.

I actually hope that the boards are still graded by the time we get to school, that way I won't have to worry about taking ANOTHER test should I decide to specialize, I'll just have to study the same one everyone else does?

Actually there are few dental students that become specialists so a p/f would actually benefit the majority of dental students.

When I asked what the purpose was I was trying to get insight one why the ADA would want to do so.
Probably money because then the ADA would have every dental student taking 1 test and than those that are looking into a speciality would have to take yet another test.

 

[Aceofspades]

Now that I think about it, there were a few questions that did require some application of what was read - but even then it was based on a specific paragraph discussing a specific sub-topic.

I don't agree with you about weeding out robots b/c robots would be the ones that would do quite well on the DAT RC. Everything could be found within the passage and some required merely understanding at face value what was written, a few required a bit of thinking but as a test of any real cognitive ability wrt to english, reading and thinking I'm still not convinced. Mind you, I haven't gotten my scores back so I could be completely wrong

Actually, I don't see what the DAT is actually testing for other than someone's ability to dedicate time to the preparation b/c for the science section, it was pretty straight forward with the exception of a few questions that tested whether you were lucky enough to have learned this little known fact during your undergrad eductation. Other than the PAT, I fail to see how it is testing for any true intellectual ability - anyone could do well if they took their preparation seriously.

You do know that the test is computerized right? How could you not have gotten your scores back? You get them before you walk out of the Prometric center.

 

[yuppers]

You do know that the test is computerized right? How could you not have gotten your scores back? You get them before you walk out of the Prometric center.

Canadian DAT doesnt work that way. You have to wait... I think the previous posters said 5 weeks.
But we America-DAT-takers had to go through a 15 question survey.... Oh the pain....

 

[Contach]

"The DATs are weighted very heavily in dental admissions decisions. Five of its component scores—academic average, science, perceptual ability, reading comprehension, and biology—were each rated more important by U.S. schools than any other factor. On a scale of 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), the academic average was rated (median score) 9, science 8, perceptual ability 7, and the rest of the component scores 6 or below as respective individual criteria of importance in the admissions decision. Quantitative reasoning score was ranked least important among the DAT’s component scores with a median of 2.2"

http://www.jdentaled.org/cgi/content/full/69/10/1095

[FONT=helvetica, arial] Evaluation of Applicants to Predoctoral Dental Education Programs: Review of the Literature .

[FONT=arial, helvetica] Richard R. Ranney, D.D.S., M.S.; Margaret B. Wilson, D.D.S., M.B.A.; Robert B. Bennett, Ph.D. .
[SIZE=-1] J Dent Educ. 69(10): 1095-1106 2005[/SIZE]

There is your answer..

 

[yuppers]

"The DATs are weighted very heavily in dental admissions decisions. Five of its component scores—academic average, science, perceptual ability, reading comprehension, and biology—were each rated more important by U.S. schools than any other factor. On a scale of 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), the academic average was rated (median score) 9, science 8, perceptual ability 7, and the rest of the component scores 6 or below as respective individual criteria of importance in the admissions decision. Quantitative reasoning score was ranked least important among the DAT’s component scores with a median of 2.2"

http://www.jdentaled.org/cgi/content/full/69/10/1095

[FONT=helvetica, arial]Evaluation of Applicants to Predoctoral Dental Education Programs: Review of the Literature .

[FONT=arial, helvetica]Richard R. Ranney, D.D.S., M.S.; Margaret B. Wilson, D.D.S., M.B.A.; Robert B. Bennett, Ph.D. .
[SIZE=-1]J Dent Educ. 69(10): 1095-1106 2005[/SIZE]

There is your answer..

Nice find. You tha man.

 

[Aceofspades]

"The DATs are weighted very heavily in dental admissions decisions. Five of its component scores—academic average, science, perceptual ability, reading comprehension, and biology—were each rated more important by U.S. schools than any other factor. On a scale of 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), the academic average was rated (median score) 9, science 8, perceptual ability 7, and the rest of the component scores 6 or below as respective individual criteria of importance in the admissions decision. Quantitative reasoning score was ranked least important among the DAT’s component scores with a median of 2.2"

http://www.jdentaled.org/cgi/content/full/69/10/1095

[FONT=helvetica, arial] Evaluation of Applicants to Predoctoral Dental Education Programs: Review of the Literature .

[FONT=arial, helvetica] Richard R. Ranney, D.D.S., M.S.; Margaret B. Wilson, D.D.S., M.B.A.; Robert B. Bennett, Ph.D. .
[SIZE=-1] J Dent Educ. 69(10): 1095-1106 2005[/SIZE]

There is your answer..

I love you! Thanks for this find. This should shut up all those people saying OMG... RC IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SECTION EVER!!! YOU WILL NEVER GET INTO DENTAL SCHOOL UNLESS YOU HAVE A 30 RC!!!! RC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>AA!!!!!

 

[NyCzPeter]

I love you! Thanks for this find. This should shut up all those people saying OMG... RC IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SECTION EVER!!! YOU WILL NEVER GET INTO DENTAL SCHOOL UNLESS YOU HAVE A 30 RC!!!! RC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>AA!!!!!

Yea seriously whoever said RC>AA is ******ed because RC is a piece of AA. Part is greater than the whole? I don't think so

 

[Aceofspades]

Yea seriously whoever said RC>AA is ******ed because RC is a piece of AA. Part is greater than the whole? I don't think so

Yes, I know! Those idiots then point to a study stating that there is a "strong" correlation between RC and NDBE scores to prove their point. Now when they do that, someone can reply with http://www.jdentaled.org/cgi/content/full/69/10/1095

 

[UCfan]

Yes, I know! Those idiots then point to a study stating that there is a "strong" correlation between RC and NDBE scores to prove their point.
This is only one paper (study). RC is the most important individual score for DAT. AA represents 5, TS represents 3 sections. PAT is a very different story. Furthermore, I have never seen or heard that RC score is the most important DAT score. If you do not believe it, you do not need to believe it. Any individual score below 17 may be ignored if you have high academic average score or high GPA or a lot of ECA experiences. However, if your RC score is below 17 and you were not born in US or English is not your own language (I am talking about US DAT here), you have almost 0 chance to getting into UCLA or UCSF or research based dental schools. I am not expert in admission process, but I know from my friends who are attending these two top notch dental schools. Instead of critizing people, try to do your best to exceed at least 17 (for RC) to prevent retaking .

 

[xylem29]

Now that I think about it, there were a few questions that did require some application of what was read - but even then it was based on a specific paragraph discussing a specific sub-topic.

I don't agree with you about weeding out robots b/c robots would be the ones that would do quite well on the DAT RC. Everything could be found within the passage and some required merely understanding at face value what was written, a few required a bit of thinking but as a test of any real cognitive ability wrt to english, reading and thinking I'm still not convinced. Mind you, I haven't gotten my scores back so I could be completely wrong
Actually, I don't see what the DAT is actually testing for other than someone's ability to dedicate time to the preparation b/c for the science section, it was pretty straight forward with the exception of a few questions that tested whether you were lucky enough to have learned this little known fact during your undergrad eductation. Other than the PAT, I fail to see how it is testing for any true intellectual ability - anyone could do well if they took their preparation seriously.

So I got my DAT scores back and I got a 24 in RC

 

[NyCzPeter]

So I got my DAT scores back and I got a 24 in RC

Congrats. Well Done

 

[achilles2]

Now that I think about it, there were a few questions that did require some application of what was read - but even then it was based on a specific paragraph discussing a specific sub-topic.

I don't agree with you about weeding out robots b/c robots would be the ones that would do quite well on the DAT RC. Everything could be found within the passage and some required merely understanding at face value what was written, a few required a bit of thinking but as a test of any real cognitive ability wrt to english, reading and thinking I'm still not convinced. Mind you, I haven't gotten my scores back so I could be completely wrong

Actually, I don't see what the DAT is actually testing for other than someone's ability to dedicate time to the preparation b/c for the science section, it was pretty straight forward with the exception of a few questions that tested whether you were lucky enough to have learned this little known fact during your undergrad eductation. Other than the PAT, I fail to see how it is testing for any true intellectual ability - anyone could do well if they took their preparation seriously.

actually PAT is just like any other section on the DAT. Dedicating enough time and doing alot of practice problems will increase your score just like dedicating time and doing practice problems in any other section.

PAT and QR were the sections I dedicated less time to and my scores reflected it, just like my science scores reflected how much time I put into them. The intelligence part of the equation was I was confident that I could score a higher total net score by sacrificing time in PAT and QR and putting it into the three science sections.

Intelligence is the ability to adapt and finding a way to best complete an arbitrary goal. In this case the goal is to score high on the DAT and not totally bomb any one section. You want to spend all your time studying for PAT because you think that best tests intelligence then go ahead. I think you'll find the adcoms to disagree with your hypothesis tho.

Find a way to excel at what is asked or make excuses, its that simple.



Just sayin

 

[xylem29]

actually PAT is just like any other section on the DAT. Dedicating enough time and doing alot of practice problems will increase your score just like dedicating time and doing practice problems in any other section.

PAT and QR were the sections I dedicated less time to and my scores reflected it, just like my science scores reflected how much time I put into them. The intelligence part of the equation was I was confident that I could score a higher total net score by sacrificing time in PAT and QR and putting it into the three science sections.

Intelligence is the ability to adapt and finding a way to best complete an arbitrary goal. In this case the goal is to score high on the DAT and not totally bomb any one section. You want to spend all your time studying for PAT because you think that best tests intelligence then go ahead. I think you'll find the adcoms to disagree with your hypothesis tho.

Find a way to excel at what is asked or make excuses, its that simple.



Just sayin

I guess I didn't think too much when I wrote that but what I meant was - the PAT was the one section where you actually had to use brain power (to visualize) and strategy. Yes practice can help you out but I still think you can practice all you want - some people can score ok (22 like me) and some can score incredibly high (24+) as their upper limits - I can't practice hoping to score a 28 on it. Some people can just see it and some can't.

For the science sections - there's no thinking, you either know it or you don't. If you have the intelligence to reason it out - you should be able to figure out what I think about the time needed to studying for the various sections (the content to lead you to my opinions are in my previous posts - there's no direct answer stating how much time I think one should devote to each section though - and that is the difference b/w the DAT and the MCAT)

 

[Contach]

I guess I didn't think too much when I wrote that but what I meant was - the PAT was the one section where you actually had to use brain power (to visualize) and strategy. Yes practice can help you out but I still think you can practice all you want - some people can score ok (22 like me) and some can score incredibly high (24+) as their upper limits - I can't practice hoping to score a 28 on it. Some people can just see it and some can't.

For the science sections - there's no thinking, you either know it or you don't. If you have the intelligence to reason it out - you should be able to figure out what I think about the time needed to studying for the various sections (the content to lead you to my opinions are in my previous posts - there's no direct answer stating how much time I think one should devote to each section though - and that is the difference b/w the DAT and the MCAT)

I strongly disagree. I think there are always ways to reason things out. Maybe if you can't come to a definitive answer, I feel that with time on a test, you can atleast eliminate some, and thus increase the odds you will guess correctly. This is one of the reasons why I've never left an exam or test early. Science makes sense and repeats itself, and its your loss if you can't capitalize on that.

I've also always been a strong believer that one can do well in anything they practice in. For this reason I value dedication and hard work, not inherent "smarts." I feel that if one wants to get a high mark in PAT and he/she practices enough, then the high mark will come. It is fatalistic and can only be detrimental to your demeanor and attitude on life to think the way you do. With that being said, I don't consider myself an optimist, usually a pessimist, but this is one value that I will very rarely budge on.

I also believe in n=1 case studies being moot (ie. your personal experience).

 

[Contach]

Yea seriously whoever said RC>AA is ******ed because RC is a piece of AA. Part is greater than the whole? I don't think so

bad logic. let me use your lay terms to disprove your argument

the whole can be muddled (ie. made less predictive) by using poor correlates (like size of my hand, and number of hairs on my chest) and then the whole would definitely be worse than the part.

 

[xylem29]

I strongly disagree. I think there are always ways to reason things out. Maybe if you can't come to a definitive answer, I feel that with time on a test, you can atleast eliminate some, and thus increase the odds you will guess correctly. This is one of the reasons why I've never left an exam or test early. Science makes sense and repeats itself, and its your loss if you can't capitalize on that.

I've also always been a strong believer that one can do well in anything they practice in. For this reason I value dedication and hard work, not inherent "smarts." I feel that if one wants to get a high mark in PAT and he/she practices enough, then the high mark will come. It is fatalistic and can only be detrimental to your demeanor and attitude on life to think the way you do. With that being said, I don't consider myself an optimist, usually a pessimist, but this is one value that I will very rarely budge on.

I also believe in n=1 case studies being moot (ie. your personal experience).

We do disagree - I believe that everyone has a potential, that they are born with. With hard-work and dedication - anyone can succeed in life. I'm not trying to say that there's nothing to be said about hard-work. However, with hard-work and dedication, not everyone can stumble upon a new theorem, an equation, an explanation for the diversity of life, etc.

All I'm trying to say is - much like how hard-work and dedication can take most athletes to the olympics, what takes one from being a 9.80s sprinter to a 9.75s sprinter is not hard-work. The difference between an average olympic athlete and a consistent gold medalist, the elites amongst the pros...my best example would be the physical difference b/w men and women means that when you compare the fastest man and fastest woman in the world, the man will always be faster.

People's neuronal connections aren't all equal.

Yes - it is somewhat of a pessimistic view, but I don't really consider it to be fatalistic. I'm rationalizing why I cannot score the top score - not why I can't obtain a good score.

 

[ArmyDDS2013]

Historically,

QR scores have been the lowest for most applicants thus it would be impressive to have a high math score.

The same really applies to RC which is difficult as there is a diverse range of English ability between students.

The Sciences are learned basically on the same level since everyone has to take the same courses (pre-reqs).

Even though these are important, you're not going to get interviews if you have a 17 TS and 22 average RC/QR that is unless u have a good GPA.

 

[achilles2]

I strongly disagree. I think there are always ways to reason things out. Maybe if you can't come to a definitive answer, I feel that with time on a test, you can atleast eliminate some, and thus increase the odds you will guess correctly. This is one of the reasons why I've never left an exam or test early. Science makes sense and repeats itself, and its your loss if you can't capitalize on that.

I've also always been a strong believer that one can do well in anything they practice in. For this reason I value dedication and hard work, not inherent "smarts." I feel that if one wants to get a high mark in PAT and he/she practices enough, then the high mark will come. It is fatalistic and can only be detrimental to your demeanor and attitude on life to think the way you do. With that being said, I don't consider myself an optimist, usually a pessimist, but this is one value that I will very rarely budge on.

I also believe in n=1 case studies being moot (ie. your personal experience).

this

often the DAT will give you a science question they assume that you don't flat out know. Rather they assume that you can use your understanding in certain areas to rule out answers.


I also agree with Contach about ones ability to adapt and excel in any area if they decide to dedicate the time and effort.

I agree with xylem's point that we have a genetic upper limit and there comes a point where hardwork, time, effort, drugs, etc will yield deminishing returns. But I REALLY doubt anyone dedicates years of there lives day in and day out to studying for the DAT. So my ultimate counter point would be that NO one ever reaches there genetic upper limit for the DAT.

So its poor comparision to use a world class sprinter whos entire purpose is to excel at one objective and compare it to a student who may have on the high end dedicated 3-5 months of study to a standardized test.


I find people tend to be stronger in certain areas because they have spent there entire life a bit more interested in a field thus they take more time to understand it or study it. Compare a person who finds art interesting at a young age vs one who finds biology interesting. Odds are if you offered no forced factors if you gave both a perceptional test and biological one it would be no surprise that the one who found art interesting there entire life would most likely do better on the perceptional and poorer on the biological test compared to the one who had a lifelong interest in biology.

Its rare a human ever ascends to there genetic upper limit. If your still breathing you didn't try as hard as you could have.

 

[doc3232]

this

often the DAT will give you a science question they assume that you don't flat out know. Rather they assume that you can use your understanding in certain areas to rule out answers.


I also agree with Contach about ones ability to adapt and excel in any area if they decide to dedicate the time and effort.

I agree with xylem's point that we have a genetic upper limit and there comes a point where hardwork, time, effort, drugs, etc will yield deminishing returns. But I REALLY doubt anyone dedicates years of there lives day in and day out to studying for the DAT. So my ultimate counter point would be that NO one ever reaches there genetic upper limit for the DAT.

So its poor comparision to use a world class sprinter whos entire purpose is to excel at one objective and compare it to a student who may have on the high end dedicated 3-5 months of study to a standardized test.


I find people tend to be stronger in certain areas because they have spent there entire life a bit more interested in a field thus they take more time to understand it or study it. Compare a person who finds art interesting at a young age vs one who finds biology interesting. Odds are if you offered no forced factors if you gave both a perceptional test and biological one it would be no surprise that the one who found art interesting there entire life would most likely do better on the perceptional and poorer on the biological test compared to the one who had a lifelong interest in biology.

Its rare a human ever ascends to there genetic upper limit. If your still breathing you didn't try as hard as you could have.

I agreed partly with Contach and partly with xylem. I do feel like if you study enough then you will get there. but I also feel like some people will just take TOO long to finally understand ochem. And even when they do, they still won't know it perfectly.

 

[Contach]

it's not often i quote a trademark American... but..

if you think you can do a thing, or you can't do a thing, you are right.
- henry ford