November 2018 DAT Thoughts

[stealth]

10 hours ago, purplethang said:

To be honest, I thought their response was pretty honest in their position. I know some of you are pissed af and that this really impacted you both mentally and physically, but what can we do? There's a very small (if not at all) chance that the CDA will do anything about it. This had happened before back in like 2012 I believe, as I spoke with someone I know and he told me that his friend got screwed over that year due to low scaling like this. It ain't super common, but it's also not uncommon apparently.

Yes, at first I was obviously pissed too and almost thought about just giving up. But I know I'm stronger than that, and there's a REASON for why things happen. For now it probably seems like there is no reason and that everything is just CDA's fault, but if they say it's accurate, then I guess it is accurate. I'm not being submissive, I'm just embracing what happened and moving on. 

This will make you grow as an individual in my opinion, and my resilience will eventually show who I am. I personally believe pouting over these low scores will do no good for me anymore, let alone affecting me negatively. I strongly believe your outlook on this and current disposition will show during interviews. If I stay pissed, I feel like my negativity will eventually pop out and cause some inconvenience to me. If I embrace it, say a big F U to the system and double my efforts to succeed, one day I know I'll get there.

I remember this quote from one of my favourite movies, "Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Cry, and you cry alone".

We can all push through this together. Don't lose your hope everyone.

Bruh the only thing CDA told you was "The scores you have received is based on your performance during the Nov. 2018 DAT exam"

Haha nobody is complaining dood, everyone is just wondering why the scale was messed up! 

[Lester]

This is sort of unrelated to this thread but I was hoping to get some advice from people who have written the DAT and mastered the chem portion.I have completed my review of gen chem by completing destroyer questions twice. I reviewed the questions by splitting the book into topics, but when I completed a DAT crusher chemistry test I didn't do as well because I am starting to forget some of the concepts, and since there are only 5 tests on DAT crusher and 10 bootcamp tests- I'd rather not use up the resourtill I feel more comfortable with the material. In short, I'm looking for more practice before I start flying through the bootcamp and crusher tests. Can someone please tell me what other resources are out there that provide representative chem questions (a Question bank for example)

[Human Being]

26 RC

25 Chem

18 Bio

19 PAT

So yeah the scaling for the Bio section was crazy this time around. Last year I got a 21 on Bio and was 83rd percentile, this year I was 89th percentile but got an 18...mind boggling. Other than the CDA changing their scaling to compensate for disparities in apparent difficulty (totally subjective) I think the best solution is for universities to take your best scaled/standardized scores from all your attempts. Since the CDA scales our raw scores so that they can be compared to years past, this should make sense, we should be able to use our best scores for each section regardless of which DAT we got them on...that's the point of the scaling/standardizing right?

[123321123321]

For all I can say, it’s best to write to schools and they consider our situation. I wrote to Mcgill and this is what I got. So if more of us write emails, they will be taken into consideration. My concern is MDT and if anyone else is in my boat, they can write to Mcgill as I think there’s a chance they might bring down the minimum MDT threshold from 6 to 5.

 

[OneDay91]

4 hours ago, 123321123321 said:

For all I can say, it’s best to write to schools and they consider our situation. I wrote to Mcgill and this is what I got. So if more of us write emails, they will be taken into consideration. My concern is MDT and if anyone else is in my boat, they can write to Mcgill as I think there’s a chance they might bring down the minimum MDT threshold from 6 to 5.

 

I also wrote to Mcgill about the MDT and how the minimum score given on the NOV DAT was 5, instead of 6 as in previous sittings. They sent me the exact same response, so hopefully they're going to adjust the requirement. The more people that email, the greater the chance!

[Starburst]

5 hours ago, 123321123321 said:

For all I can say, it’s best to write to schools and they consider our situation. I wrote to Mcgill and this is what I got. So if more of us write emails, they will be taken into consideration. My concern is MDT and if anyone else is in my boat, they can write to Mcgill as I think there’s a chance they might bring down the minimum MDT threshold from 6 to 5.

 

 

 

Lmaoo I laughed when I saw this. I doubt they are going to bring down the threshold for MDT from 6 to 5. The MDT scores for this year are one of the highest they've ever had with tons of people getting 30s.

I hate to say this but honestly you should've just taken the MDT section more seriously. 

[123321123321]

10 minutes ago, Starburst said:

Lmaoo I laughed when I saw this. I doubt they are going to bring down the threshold for MDT from 6 to 5. The MDT scores for this year are one of the highest they've ever had with tons of people getting 30s.

I hate to say this but honestly you should've just taken the MDT section more seriously. 

No harm in trying and I don’t see what causes the laughter.

[keepITup]

Lowering Mcgill threshold of MDT from 6 to 5 means invalidating the whole test since the lowest grade obtained by students this session was 5, meaning cancellation of MDT requirement not simply changing it!

[Starburst]

15 hours ago, 123321123321 said:

No harm in trying and I don’t see what causes the laughter.

True but like @keepITup said, the lowest grade given out was a 5. If they lower the score, you'll be cancelling the whole section which McGill is not going to do. Asking them to do that is like asking UWO to lower their RC cutoff from 20 to 10 (no one gets a 10).

Like I said, just pick up a blade and practice next time or watch some soap carving videos  

[OneDay91]

51 minutes ago, Starburst said:

True but like @keepITup said, the lowest grade given out was a 5. If they lower the score, you'll be cancelling the whole section which McGill is not going to do. Asking them to do that is like asking UWO to lower their RC cutoff from 20 to 10 (no one gets a 10).

Like I said, just pick up a blade and practice next time or watch some soap carving videos  

While true, if you look closely at the Feb 2018 DAT the lowest score was a 6 (68 people received) besides the 4 people who received a score of 0. A score of 5 did not exist on this sitting.

Furthermore, if you look at the Nov 2017 DAT the lowest score was also a 6 (98 people received) besides the 3 people who received a score of 0. A score of 5 also did not exist on this sitting.

The Nov 2018 DAT had similar if not the same percentiles but the lowest score given was a 5 (100 people received) with no one receiving a score of 6. 

By looking at these results, one could assume that if they had preformed in the exact same manner as they did to receive a score of 5 on the Nov 2018 DAT they would have yielded a score of 6 in the other sittings. This sort of discrepancy should be allowed.

Mcgill also just recently implemented the DAT as a requirement and from my point of view it looked as if they just wanted their applicants to achieve the minimum score (besides 0). Everyone who wrote in the previous 2 sittings would meet this requirement, besides the few who scored a 0. The same cannot be said for the Nov 2018 DAT. 

[Starburst]

50 minutes ago, OneDay91 said:

While true, if you look closely at the Feb 2018 DAT the lowest score was a 6 (68 people received) besides the 4 people who received a score of 0. A score of 5 did not exist on this sitting.

Furthermore, if you look at the Nov 2017 DAT the lowest score was also a 6 (98 people received) besides the 3 people who received a score of 0. A score of 5 also did not exist on this sitting.

The Nov 2018 DAT had similar if not the same percentiles but the lowest score given was a 5 (100 people received) with no one receiving a score of 6. 

By looking at these results, one could assume that if they had preformed in the exact same manner as they did to receive a score of 5 on the Nov 2018 DAT they would have yielded a score of 6 in the other sittings. This sort of discrepancy should be allowed.

Mcgill also just recently implemented the DAT as a requirement and from my point of view it looked as if they just wanted their applicants to achieve the minimum score (besides 0). Everyone who wrote in the previous 2 sittings would meet this requirement, besides the few who scored a 0. The same cannot be said for the Nov 2018 DAT. 

Right but we're talking about a 5/30 here that's literally the lowest score you can possibly get if you touched the soap lol. 

You can give it a shot but realistically you'll have to rewrite the DAT if you want to apply to McGill again. But just curious did you guys not practice at all?

[yampotato]

Anyone sent an email to schools like UBC, UofA regarding the score distribution for Nov 2018?

[arkragon]

Lowering the sciences score requirement would make more sense, but MDT from 6 to 5? I don't see how that would make any sense.

Like Starburst said, a 5 is like just touching the soap. And not to sound harsh, but if you actually want/need the MDT requirement to go from 6 to 5 I don't think dentistry is really the best career to choose.

[simsta]

.

[GreyShirt]

Would anyone be down to start a petition to send to CDA about rescaling? Maybe it will be more impactful than sending emails individually and I feel like at this point we've got nothing to lose. If yes, it would be great if you could recommend a method of petitioning (ex. what's the best website to do it on). 

[Lolomegabyte]

1 hour ago, arkragon said:

Lowering the sciences score requirement would make more sense, but MDT from 6 to 5? I don't see how that would make any sense.

Like Starburst said, a 5 is like just touching the soap. And not to sound harsh, but if you actually want/need the MDT requirement to go from 6 to 5 I don't think dentistry is really the best career to choose.

That’s pretty harsh. All they’re saying that the past few years, the cut-off corresponded to all LOWEST mdt scores of those years. That basically guaranteed that anyone who even ‘touched’ the soap as you said, was able to apply. 

Since the lowest score went down by one this year, they’re only asking if it’s possible to consider matching it as was done in previous years. That’s it. You’re not invalidating anything lol since McGill’s cut-off to begin with was the lowest score on the test. 

They could’ve practiced for months, you never know. Maybe they went in shock from nervousness and absolutely messed up. And honestly, maybe their stats are beyond the roof, and just the mdt is stopping them. I don’t think it’s great to tell anyone that a career path they’re pursuing isn’t right for them.  

[bruins]

2 hours ago, GreyShirt said:

Would anyone be down to start a petition to send to CDA about rescaling? Maybe it will be more impactful than sending emails individually and I feel like at this point we've got nothing to lose. If yes, it would be great if you could recommend a method of petitioning (ex. what's the best website to do it on). 

yes please!! I'm not sure how/where to start one but I would definitely sign it!

[westcoastbestcoast]

3 hours ago, GreyShirt said:

Would anyone be down to start a petition to send to CDA about rescaling? Maybe it will be more impactful than sending emails individually and I feel like at this point we've got nothing to lose. If yes, it would be great if you could recommend a method of petitioning (ex. what's the best website to do it on). 

Unfortunately, nothing will be done.

[GreyShirt]

28 minutes ago, westcoastbestcoast said:

Unfortunately, nothing will be done.

We've already been crushed by their rubbish email reply lol, nothing else to lose tbh. 

[bruins]

37 minutes ago, westcoastbestcoast said:

Unfortunately, nothing will be done.

no harm in trying 

[westcoastbestcoast]

27 minutes ago, bruins said:

no harm in trying 

True, but also be realistic haha.

[arkragon]

3 hours ago, Lolomegabyte said:

That’s pretty harsh. All they’re saying that the past few years, the cut-off corresponded to all LOWEST mdt scores of those years. That basically guaranteed that anyone who even ‘touched’ the soap as you said, was able to apply. 

Since the lowest score went down by one this year, they’re only asking if it’s possible to consider matching it as was done in previous years. That’s it. You’re not invalidating anything lol since McGill’s cut-off to begin with was the lowest score on the test. 

They could’ve practiced for months, you never know. Maybe they went in shock from nervousness and absolutely messed up. And honestly, maybe their stats are beyond the roof, and just the mdt is stopping them. I don’t think it’s great to tell anyone that a career path they’re pursuing isn’t right for them.  

If that's the case then I really wonder why McGill would even include MDT at all, especially if it's solely used as a cutoff. MDT is optional for almost all schools and they could simply follow suit.

"They touched the soap, so they pass." Really?

And going back to my previous point, technical skills are crucial for a practicing dentist. I don't want to just tell people that they can't be a dentist, but sometimes that's just the hard truth. Dentistry is expensive, and practicing for months but still getting the lowest possible score will only spell trouble for the next 4 years or more. However, if you're completely aware of all of this and you want to still pursue it, go ahead and make your dreams come true. I admire persistence and hard work, but I don't like seeing people crashing and burning because they're pursuing a romanticized career.

[Zaandrei.]

Yeah^^ but...

https://www.facebook.com/Dr.wim.oudshoorn/media_set?set=a.990749924450955&type=3

EDIT: I'm not sure if the individual's post is public on Facebook.

Anyways:, summary of the research: "CD and PA tests are neither selective nor sensitive enough to identify candidates who have the potential to succeed or fail"

But for the record, I do think that if you actually wanted to do well... you should be able to get better than a 5 on the MDT if you put in the same effort you did in your undergrad classes.

[arkragon]

If I'm wrong then that's great! I wouldn't have to worry anymore, aside from the uselessness of the section and how it can be used to weed people out while being unreliable in predicting clinical ability.

[Rollierollie]

LOLOL.

Spoke with my brother today who's currently doing dental anaesthesia in the US (DDS in Canada). Sent him the scale this year and was pretty much complaining to him, hoping he'd give his lil bro some "cheer-up talk"...

but the dude was like "This just means all of you did bad this year. Like yeah, cool you scored 98th percentile out of everyone who did relatively poor, but that doesn't necessarily mean you deserve a particular raw score in retrospect of previous scores to the 98th percentile. Are the scores the same, if the average for a test was 80 and highest score was a 95, then next year the similar exam gives the average of 60 and highest score was 75? Assuming they have some kind of a cutoff, everyone this year just under-performed compared to previous years. Just study harder man, you know you're better than that"

He managed to call me dumb without actually saying it lol.. Tbh his reply made me laugh and I think I'm just gonna use this to motivate myself for this upcoming Feb DAT. It kinda sounds harsh at first but I know he doesn't mean anything bad. The dude's always been kinda hard on me to make me strive further, There really isn't anything to be done, since I'm sure they'll get complaints from people who wrote their DAT this Feb, or even last year November, if they decided to adjust anything. Bad luck this year, hoping to be better this February.