Feb dat

[Manitoba20]

/

[determinat0r]

Just checked my scores:

BIO - 22

CHEM - 20

RC - 22

AA - 21

PAT - 21

MDT - N/A

 

Should I re-write in November if I need to? I'm surprised with the Chem & RC scores, really was looking to hit a minimum 22 AA overall.

[dental.261681]

Reading: 21

Biology: 21

Chem:23

TS: 22

AA: 22

PAT: 21

MDT: 26

 

I am having a hard time deciding if I should take my DAT again in November to increase my chance of getting into UofA.

 

Any suggestions?

[formidable]

Reading: 21

Biology: 21

Chem:23

TS: 22

AA: 22

PAT: 21

MDT: 26

 

I am having a hard time deciding if I should take my DAT again in November to increase my chance of getting into UofA.

 

Any suggestions?

 

Your DAT is great for UofA. Assuming your GPA is also competitive, you will have no problem getting an interview at uofa. Then it comes down to your interview score. But your DAT is the least of your worries. Great job by the way on the MDT.

[SHD]

Reading: 21

Biology: 21

Chem:23

TS: 22

AA: 22

PAT: 21

MDT: 26

 

I am having a hard time deciding if I should take my DAT again in November to increase my chance of getting into UofA.

 

Any suggestions?

 

I think you are very good for the DAT aspect. Not only for UofA but also others. But finally everything is dependent on your GPA first.

[ann2012]

Just checked my scores:

BIO - 22

CHEM - 20

RC - 22

AA - 21

PAT - 21

MDT - N/A

 

Should I re-write in November if I need to? I'm surprised with the Chem & RC scores, really was looking to hit a minimum 22 AA overall.

I think u are fine. I was told a 20+ in each section is competitive

[Contach]

not exactly true... some years the DAT has a different percentile associated with a particular numerical DAT score... i remember the year i wrote it in feb. i got 99th percentile for my AA and it was a 23, whereas this year a 99th percentile in for both DAT tests after that were much higher ~25 for a 99th percentile

 

The year you took the DAT there were fewer people. Let's say there were 100 people. and you did better than 99 of them.

 

The year where the 99th percentile was a 25 score, there were more people taking the test: Let's say 500 people. The 99th percentile in this case beat 495 people, which is harder than beating 99 people, because there is more power in this score (greater ability to predict a result that is not by chance)... thus a higher score. And his 25 reflects the fact that it is harder to beat 495 than 99.

 

When you increase a sample size, the normal distribution gets wider

[412simba]

The year you took the DAT there were fewer people. Let's say there were 100 people. and you did better than 99 of them.

 

The year where the 99th percentile was a 25 score, there were more people taking the test: Let's say 500 people. The 99th percentile in this case beat 495 people, which is harder than beating 99 people, because there is more power in this score (greater ability to predict a result that is not by chance)... thus a higher score. And his 25 reflects the fact that it is harder to beat 495 than 99.

 

When you increase a sample size, the normal distribution gets wider

 

^^ not necessarily. when i wrote in in nov. 2012 i got a 28 in bio (100th percentile and much harder than my re-write in terms of quality of questions) i re-wrote it in 2013 feb. and i know i did worse in terms of #of qs i did not know but did worse but still got a 27 (100th percentile, mind you the test in terms of difficulty was much easier). every year its different, and if you compare each of the novembers or each of the feb. the percentile and scores don't match up. the DAT is not the best means of standardization.

 

i have also spoken to students who re-wrote the DAT this year compared to when they wrote it last year/year b4. it was much easier this feb. and last nov. than in previous years AND the percentiles were quite different than years b4. the # of ppl each year who wrote the DAT has not gone up very much, considering its a pool of ~800 for the feb.... its changed relatively very little.

[Contach]

^^ not necessarily. when i wrote in in nov. 2012 i got a 28 in bio (100th percentile and much harder than my re-write in terms of quality of questions) i re-wrote it in 2013 feb. and i know i did worse in terms of #of qs i did not know but did worse but still got a 27 (100th percentile, mind you the test in terms of difficulty was much easier). every year its different, and if you compare each of the novembers or each of the feb. the percentile and scores don't match up. the DAT is not the best means of standardization.

 

i have also spoken to students who re-wrote the DAT this year compared to when they wrote it last year/year b4. it was much easier this feb. and last nov. than in previous years AND the percentiles were quite different than years b4. the # of ppl each year who wrote the DAT has not gone up very much, considering its a pool of ~800 for the feb.... its changed relatively very little.

 

Once again, we are disagreeing on what "hard" and "easy" means on a standardized test. It is not in relation to the quality of the questions (grade 11 questions vs 3rd year college). It has to do with how much better you can do on the questions, than the person sitting next to you.

 

And no... you don't know you did worse in terms of # of questions. You have no idea because you don't know what your raw score was. Your mood that day, atmosphere, recall bias, and expectations all play a role in how well you perceive you did.

 

When I took it, more people take it in november, than february, so the distributions will be different.

 

Also, when you get to near the top percentiles, if 12 people tie for the top score in 1 session, they will get a lower score out of 30, than if only 2 people tie for the top score. Does this make sense? It's like if 3 people tie with the best times in a foot race and get the exact same time, they are all called third, instead of all being called first.

 

What point are you trying to argue? I'm talking mathematics and statistics, you seem like you are alluding to some hobbit in his corner office getting a hard on by screwing with the distribution of scores... and making some DATs "easier."

 

Can someone post a picture of the DAT results from the last few writing sessions?

[412simba]

Once again, we are disagreeing on what "hard" and "easy" means on a standardized test. It is not in relation to the quality of the questions (grade 11 questions vs 3rd year college). It has to do with how much better you can do on the questions, than the person sitting next to you.

 

And no... you don't know you did worse in terms of # of questions. You have no idea because you don't know what your raw score was. Your mood that day, atmosphere, recall bias, and expectations all play a role in how well you perceive you did.

 

When I took it, more people take it in november, than february, so the distributions will be different.

 

Also, when you get to near the top percentiles, if 12 people tie for the top score in 1 session, they will get a lower score out of 30, than if only 2 people tie for the top score. Does this make sense? It's like if 3 people tie with the best times in a foot race and get the exact same time, they are all called third, instead of all being called first.

 

What point are you trying to argue? I'm talking mathematics and statistics, you seem like you are alluding to some hobbit in his corner office getting a hard on by screwing with the distribution of scores... and making some DATs "easier."

 

Can someone post a picture of the DAT results from the last few writing sessions?

 

don't insult the hobbits... and I'm pretty sure its elves that standardize the scores.