I understand that that DAT is a standardized test that has to evolve with with time, but doesn't it put a disadvantage in those who have yet to take the DAT in comparison to those who have already taken it? In my opinion it does. If the past post about the DAT being about a rounded up of 20% harder, I think dental schools should somehow be informed of when the pooled questions for the test were somewhat increased in difficulty, because I doubt they do. A person who takes the DAT now and gets a 22AA, should be given preference to a person who got a 22AA a 6 months to a year before (assuming they are equivalences being compared for an admissions spot). Just another reason the DAT should not be considered a equalizer, because so many factors come to play a role in a person's final AA, such as the range of difficulty presented to a test taker from the pooled questions (which is a random process) in comparison to another test taker, or timing by which the pooled questions are changed in difficulty level. For a process to be standardized, it cannot be presented as a random mechanism. A random mechanism statistically gives a better picture of the range in a given population, in this case range of scores amongst overall test takers, but the point here is not to research the distribution of scores, but rather find a way to lessen the variance from test taker to test taker. I don't know how this can be done, or if it is possible, which is why calling a standaridized test an equalizer is a major problem. I know the DAT is a vital component of the admissions process and is a time tested process by which to choose amongst the best of applicants. So why change it, eh? But I think we need to stop calling it an equlaizer. My two cents.