Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums
OmSriSaiRam

November 2018 DAT Thoughts

Recommended Posts

On 12/16/2018 at 4:24 PM, Lolomegabyte said:

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. 

We never know why CDA had decided to lower MDT min non-zero score to 5 (as opposed to 6 last session), we also don’t know if Mcgill have decided their cutoff based on an updated internal info concering a new scale to be implemented by CDA. Having discrete scores system with many zeros in between tells that there is a science behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, keepITup said:

We never know why CDA had decided to lower MDT min non-zero score to 5 (as opposed to 6 last session), we also don’t know if Mcgill have decided their cutoff based on an updated internal info concering a new scale to be implemented by CDA. Having discrete scores system with many zeros in between tells that there is a science behind it.

The same way we never know why CDA decided to have the highest Bio score be 20 ! Having discrete scores system with  zeros beyond the score of 20 for bio tells that there’s a science behind it, right ? How about PAT ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, 123321123321 said:

The same way we never know why CDA decided to have the highest Bio score be 20 ! Having discrete scores system with  zeros beyond the score of 20 for bio tells that there’s a science behind it, right ? How about PAT ? 

Exactly! We never know, same for bio and PAT, we never know... and until we get clarification from CDA it remains an issue to be resolved with CDA (if there is any). Assuming things and asking a third party to take care of it by loweing their requirement to pass everyone in order to meet our failing grade is not ideal... but if the logic is “it’s good to try” and “we have nothing to lose” then I am not going to argue against that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2018 at 10:25 PM, simsta said:

your AA is not the mathematical average of chem+bio+rc. it is a SCALED average. usually they are close though. my mathematical average was 21.66 and my actual AA was 22

No your AA is a raw score from your total correct answers out of both chem and bio. So your AA score is correlated to your correct answers out of 70 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bentist said:

CDA finally replied to me. They said percentiles between different test sessions cannot be directly compared, and they do not indicate the skill level of test-takers.

If the score is supposed to indicate our 'skill level' I find it hard to believe in past tests, HALF of the test writers were more 'skilled' in biology that the very best performers in Nov 2018. Was there a different in test difficulty? Shouldn't be, since dental schools will receive applications with DAT scores from various sessions so they should be comparable. Calibre of writers shouldn't differ much between test writes so I don't buy that we are all less skilled in biology or PAT than past writers in the last few years were.

 

Yeah, I've been thinking along those similar lines. It's quite odd that ALL 1000+ test takers underperformed at biology and PAT (not even 1/1000 could do well?). Very likely, it's the test itself that's harder, but CDA says it's the test writers who underperformed, so dunno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be possible that the test way easier compared to previous years which is why they had to lower our scores to equalize it? It was my first time writing the dat so I’m not too sure how it was like other years 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2018 at 4:21 AM, Bentist said:

CDA finally replied to me. They said percentiles between different test sessions cannot be directly compared, and they do not indicate the skill level of test-takers.

If the score is supposed to indicate our 'skill level' I find it hard to believe in past tests, HALF of the test writers were more 'skilled' in biology that the very best performers in Nov 2018. Was there a different in test difficulty? Shouldn't be, since dental schools will receive applications with DAT scores from various sessions so they should be comparable. Calibre of writers shouldn't differ much between test writes so I don't buy that we are all less skilled in biology or PAT than past writers in the last few years were.

 

Exactly, I wrote the DAT last year and got a 21 on Bio and a 21 on PAT, this year I got a 18 on Bio and 19 on PAT. Considering this was my second time writing I did go over all Bio again and practice PAT more so naturally you would think my "skill" in these sections would have gotten better. I highly doubt that my "skill" in Bio has fallen from 21 to 18 (4 points is huge!), same with PAT. I found both the Bio and PAT sections from this November and last November to be comparable in difficulty so idk WTF the CDA is doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since what the CDA has done makes no sense, I am asking everyone if it would be a bad thing to send the link to this forum so that they could read all of our thoughts in one place? Or can we please start a petition and send it to them (that is if someone knows how to send it anonymously or if someone is brave enough to send it)? It would just be too much of a coincidence if EVERYONE in the entire country did bad in PAT and BIO but good in the other 2 sections. It just makes no sense, especially when people are saying that this test had the same level of difficulty as previous sittings in all sections. I’m not sure if this is the case, but since those 2 sections were so low and the others are normal, I have a feeling that there was some sort of tinkering or that the computer read those sections incorrectly (probably not but I’m trying desperately to find a reason for this lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, was there not one question in bio that was wrong (the animal behaviour one). It was the last question of the bio section and one question could make a difference in the scores as well (although slight)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a note:

I know the NOV 2018 Bio scores are really low and PAT fairly low relative to recent tests. However, the NOV 2018 RC and Chem scores were significantly higher, relative to previous tests. Thus, AA, typically the most important parameter, is relatively constant in distribution.

Noting this, I believe the test itself or the marking was corrected to make certain sections harder and were offset by making other sections easier/graded more forgivingly. This is normal for standardized tests when they see an upward trend in grades over time. The test givers have to self-correct either by administering harder questions for that section or grading more harshly. But in this case, it is clear they were self-aware and offset this harshness with RC and chem.

This all seems intentional, so trying to bring awareness to the CDA of their own actions is futile. Unfortunately, a lot of you got caught in an adjustment period and I totally feel for you, but most schools don't look at Bio specifically. They look at AA, which hasn't been tanked because of Bio (because of the previously mentioned offset). Thus, it shouldn't be the determining factor of your dental futures.

(Other evidence of this adjustment period is the lowering of the MDT minimum score.)

This is just my speculation. At the very least, I can almost guarantee this wasn't an accident. There is a reason the CDA takes 6-8 weeks to release results. They go over them meticulously and look at the statistics of how each question performed. There was intention.

I hope you all aren't too rattled and use this as motivation as I have seen many of you comment. But also remember this isn't necessarily a game changer for many of you either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, HopefulDDS said:

Just as a note:

I know the NOV 2018 Bio scores are really low and PAT fairly low relative to recent tests. However, the NOV 2018 RC and Chem scores were significantly higher, relative to previous tests. Thus, AA, typically the most important parameter, is relatively constant in distribution.

Noting this, I believe the test itself or the marking was corrected to make certain sections harder and were offset by making other sections easier/graded more forgivingly. This is normal for standardized tests when they see an upward trend in grades over time. The test givers have to self-correct either by administering harder questions for that section or grading more harshly. But in this case, it is clear they were self-aware and offset this harshness with RC and chem.

This all seems intentional, so trying to bring awareness to the CDA of their own actions is futile. Unfortunately, a lot of you got caught in an adjustment period and I totally feel for you, but most schools don't look at Bio specifically. They look at AA, which hasn't been tanked because of Bio (because of the previously mentioned offset). Thus, it shouldn't be the determining factor of your dental futures.

(Other evidence of this adjustment period is the lowering of the MDT minimum score.)

This is just my speculation. At the very least, I can almost guarantee this wasn't an accident. There is a reason the CDA takes 6-8 weeks to release results. They go over them meticulously and look at the statistics of how each question performed. There was intention.

I hope you all aren't too rattled and use this as motivation as I have seen many of you comment. But also remember this isn't necessarily a game changer for many of you either

Some schools that I am interested in though have cut offs for each section (cut off: 19) and because of what they did with bio and PAT I no longer meet those requirements (18 in both) when in previous tests I would have. Plus I got a 22 in chem which is 83rd percentile which is close to the feb test where a 22 was 81st percentile so it doesnt really balance everything out in my opinion. What they did is inexcusable and causes a lot of people to restudy for months and spend so much more money for no good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, HopefulDDS said:

Just as a note:

I know the NOV 2018 Bio scores are really low and PAT fairly low relative to recent tests. However, the NOV 2018 RC and Chem scores were significantly higher, relative to previous tests. Thus, AA, typically the most important parameter, is relatively constant in distribution.

Noting this, I believe the test itself or the marking was corrected to make certain sections harder and were offset by making other sections easier/graded more forgivingly. This is normal for standardized tests when they see an upward trend in grades over time. The test givers have to self-correct either by administering harder questions for that section or grading more harshly. But in this case, it is clear they were self-aware and offset this harshness with RC and chem.

This all seems intentional, so trying to bring awareness to the CDA of their own actions is futile. Unfortunately, a lot of you got caught in an adjustment period and I totally feel for you, but most schools don't look at Bio specifically. They look at AA, which hasn't been tanked because of Bio (because of the previously mentioned offset). Thus, it shouldn't be the determining factor of your dental futures.

(Other evidence of this adjustment period is the lowering of the MDT minimum score.)

This is just my speculation. At the very least, I can almost guarantee this wasn't an accident. There is a reason the CDA takes 6-8 weeks to release results. They go over them meticulously and look at the statistics of how each question performed. There was intention.

I hope you all aren't too rattled and use this as motivation as I have seen many of you comment. But also remember this isn't necessarily a game changer for many of you either

Totally agree with you and I previously commented something along those lines, time to move on and focus on what can be done rather than analyzing what can’t be!

Good luck everyone and enjoy the holidays season!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bruins said:

Some schools that I am interested in though have cut offs for each section (cut off: 19) and because of what they did with bio and PAT I no longer meet those requirements (18 in both) when in previous tests I would have. Plus I got a 22 in chem which is 83rd percentile which is close to the feb test where a 22 was 81st percentile so it doesnt really balance everything out in my opinion. What they did is inexcusable and causes a lot of people to restudy for months and spend so much more money for no good reason.

I am not defending their actions as fair. I would be upset too if I wrote that test. However, I believe their actions are not without cause. It is much easier for the CDA to keep things the same, so any variations have meaningful effort behind them. It is anyone's guess what the meaning is.

I completely sympathize with your situation, but I don't think complaining about an intentional action by the CDA to the CDA will be helpful. Although, from your descriptions of your first scores I don't see why you re-wrote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HopefulDDS said:

I am not defending their actions as fair. I would be upset too if I wrote that test. However, I believe their actions are not without cause. It is much easier for the CDA to keep things the same, so any variations have meaningful effort behind them. It is anyone's guess what the meaning is.

I completely sympathize with your situation, but I don't think complaining about an intentional action by the CDA to the CDA will be helpful. Although, from your descriptions of your first scores I don't see why you re-wrote

Hey sorry for the misunderstanding. This was my first time writing. I was just comparing the chem sections from the last 2 sittings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bruins said:

Hey sorry for the misunderstanding. This was my first time writing. I was just comparing the chem sections from the last 2 sittings

Ah I see my bad. I see your comparison. I'm speaking more to the amount of people getting solid chem scores (20-22) in Nov 2018 compared (30.93%) to the last test (19.03%). That's a pretty big up tick (especially in the 22's) Making me think that some scores may have been tweaked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2018 at 11:27 PM, futuredentist1 said:

Please replyhas CDA sent your DAT scores to any of the schools you have requested yet? They didn't yet for me and the application is due soon

yup UBC and UofT have both received my scores already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2018 at 12:47 AM, dentistM said:

how do you know UofT has received your scores? did you get an email? 

yup, UofT sent me an email saying all my documents had been received around 2 days after we received the scores from CDA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...