UWO admission stats for class of 2010 are up

[jll]

yah- the wait for the dat scores is killing me too.. tho we'll get it soon =)

[wisdom_tooth]

Well, if a school is using a grade point scale, which it doesn't seem like Western is doing, then they generally convert individual grades first, then average everything together. So its a very coarse measure. For example, the highest score you can get on a 4.0 scale, is obviously 4.0, which represents any grade from 90-100 (for most schools). So, this means that it doesn't make a difference if you got 99 in a class, or 90, because they both translate into a 4.0. By Western looking at your actual average instead of converting it into a 4.0 scale, IMO I think its a more accurate way to measure a student's abilities. The only problem is that some schools do not give the actual numerical grades to students but instead use a different system (like only giving letter grades).

My school doesn't show number grades on transcripts only letter grades...so how does that average out

[Goldenboy6]

My school doesn't show number grades on transcripts only letter grades...so how does that average out

 

Well, if the school is using a 4.0 scale, then there is no problem as an A+ =4.0, A=3.9, A-=3.7, B+=3.3, B=3.0, B-=2.7 etc... This should be the case for most schools but check the OMSAS conversion sheet to see if that's the conversion for your school. As for Western someone above me posted that they called the admissions department and apparently they use the midpoint of the scale so an A+ normally means 90-100 so they'll give you a 95. I guess this is a fair way to do it, but I'm not really sure. My school gives both letter grades and numerical grades so when I calculate it using Western's midpoint method my average is 0.8 higher than my actual average. I guess that's not too much of a difference.

[Floss]

just so you guys know, marks arent everything. there are people w/ 90+ averages that didnt get in last year. a lot of it is actually based on your interview.

[predentist_gal]

just so you guys know, marks arent everything. there are people w/ 90+ averages that didnt get in last year. a lot of it is actually based on your interview.

 

boo interviews! I kinda wish i was a bit older so i could have applied to dental school when u didnt even need to have an interview!! that actually wasnt even THAT long ago...lucky us, interviews and its the double cohort yr

[laxman]

Hey Floss,

 

I'm pretty sure that most of us are well aware that marks are certainly not everything by any means. The interviews play a big part as do the DAT scores. It's all dependant on the school you apply to. But, for instance, lets look at Western's admission criteria: 60% marks, 25% Interview and 15% DAT. To get an interview at western you need decent marks, I think they say at least one year completed with +80% (but you will need 2 years with greater than 80% to be competative after the interview) and good DAT scores especially in the AA with an emphasis on RC. So as you can see, this is a big reason why we constantly talk about marks...good marks + good DAT = interview (for western, uofT, Dal, uofA and others) and having an interview = shot at cracking the line up for some class of 2011.

[wisdom_tooth]

Well, if the school is using a 4.0 scale, then there is no problem as an A+ =4.0, A=3.9, A-=3.7, B+=3.3, B=3.0, B-=2.7 etc... This should be the case for most schools but check the OMSAS conversion sheet to see if that's the conversion for your school. As for Western someone above me posted that they called the admissions department and apparently they use the midpoint of the scale so an A+ normally means 90-100 so they'll give you a 95. I guess this is a fair way to do it, but I'm not really sure. My school gives both letter grades and numerical grades so when I calculate it using Western's midpoint method my average is 0.8 higher than my actual average. I guess that's not too much of a difference.

yea that's what I thought...that's how I've been calculating my marks so far (I do it to reassure myself lol). Thanks for the clarification.

 

The only think that sucks is that for example uoft and western award a 3.9 for an 87%, unfortunately my school gives an A for percentages ranging from 80-89%. In some aspects it's good, but in others it isn't. So really aiming for an 80 would be like aiming for a 89.

 

anyways, if you're applying this year

 

good luck!

 

good luck to everyone!

[wisdom_tooth]

Hey Floss,

 

I'm pretty sure that most of us are well aware that marks are certainly not everything by any means. The interviews play a big part as do the DAT scores. It's all dependant on the school you apply to. But, for instance, lets look at Western's admission criteria: 60% marks, 25% Interview and 15% DAT. To get an interview at western you need decent marks, I think they say at least one year completed with +80% (but you will need 2 years with greater than 80% to be competative after the interview) and good DAT scores especially in the AA with an emphasis on RC. So as you can see, this is a big reason why we constantly talk about marks...good marks + good DAT = interview (for western, uofT, Dal, uofA and others) and having an interview = shot at cracking the line up for some class of 2011.

speaking of the DAT, I know that western and uoft put emphasis on AA, especially on RC. I was always told that carving isn't that important but after looking at Western's stats, and seeing 19/18 for the carving average I'm kind of nervous. I've practiced with 5 soaps (20 non-soaps) and I still can't get over 18. Should I be worried???

[laxman]

I've practiced with 5 soaps (20 non-soaps) and I still can't get over 18. Should I be worried???

 

I don't quite understand what you mean by this. You've written the DAT multiple times and can't get over 18 or do you score it yourself and can't get over 18?

 

Obviously you want to get as high as possible in every section, but a lower carving score isn't going to make or break your application especially if its that close to the average. Besides an 18 isn't that bad at all. Lets remember that this is an average too and that the range probably varies in either direction enough that your score will more than likely fall within range. Assuming a good AA with a good RC and competative marks I wouldn't worry about it.

 

I know this contradicts what i've said in previous posts but try not to worry about all this because what's done is done. Hopefully we all have horse shoes up our arces and clovers in our hair cause there is nothing we can do about our applications now except get good grades and hope for interviews.

[Floss]

Last year, UWO looked at total DAT scores w/ emphasis on RC. That's why carving marks were important. But this year, they're just looking at your AA + RC.

[laxman]

I really don't think carving was worth much last year either. UWO said they looked at the composite score with a big emphasis on RC. Last year the reading comprehension cut off was 18.

 

I think the average for carving was high just because the best applicants are going to have high scores for everything. If the previous year stats were up we would see very similar DAT averages - the different for the class of 2010 vs 2009 is that the average grade is about 4% higher for the class of 2010.

 

I dunno where i'm going with this...

 

later

[lecture3waves]

speaking of the DAT, I know that western and uoft put emphasis on AA, especially on RC. I was always told that carving isn't that important but after looking at Western's stats, and seeing 19/18 for the carving average I'm kind of nervous. I've practiced with 5 soaps (20 non-soaps) and I still can't get over 18. Should I be worried???

No need to be nervous. UWO no longer looks at your carving score. As is stated in their updated FAQ, all they look at now is AA with emphasis on RC. Since they do not explicitly mention anything about carving, I called in and got confirmation that they dont care about this aspect of the DAT.

[wisdom_tooth]

I don't quite understand what you mean by this. You've written the DAT multiple times and can't get over 18 or do you score it yourself and can't get over 18?

 

Obviously you want to get as high as possible in every section, but a lower carving score isn't going to make or break your application especially if its that close to the average. Besides an 18 isn't that bad at all. Lets remember that this is an average too and that the range probably varies in either direction enough that your score will more than likely fall within range. Assuming a good AA with a good RC and competative marks I wouldn't worry about it.

 

I know this contradicts what i've said in previous posts but try not to worry about all this because what's done is done. Hopefully we all have horse shoes up our arces and clovers in our hair cause there is nothing we can do about our applications now except get good grades and hope for interviews.

lol no no. Sorry I should have clarified: I took the DAT kaplan course and my teacher provided us with a marking scheme and using that marking scheme I grade my soap carving. I still haven't taken the DAT yes, I'm taking this upcoming February

[wisdom_tooth]

No need to be nervous. UWO no longer looks at your carving score. As is stated in their updated FAQ, all they look at now is AA with emphasis on RC. Since they do not explicitly mention anything about carving, I called in and got confirmation that they dont care about this aspect of the DAT.

hey thanks, this is great news, one less think I need stress about. I guess I'll focus all my attention on just AA and RC. I guess that means I can put perceptual ability and soap carving on the back burner.

[laxman]

So I emailed Trish Ashbury about a bunch of things and have some news to report. This year the number of applications are up once again - she said there has been approximately 650 with about a couple dozen more to enter into the system. She also talked about what the website says about DAT scores - they will ONLY being using AA; however, one must meet the minimum reading comprehension score as well as possess good chemistry and biology scores - last years reading cutoff was 18. I also asked her about the bonus points for honours and graduate work but she didn't say much about it other than the points received are slim in comparison to the rest of the applicants final ranking.

[Tristan23]

Hi Laxman,

 

Did she happen to elaborate on what good chem and bio scores means? I know that they only look at the AA this year and you need to have a strong RC scores and even achieve a certain cutoff but is there a cutoff for chem and bio as well? Thanks

[laxman]

Hey Tristan23,

 

There was no mention about any cutoffs for the biology and chemistry section. She said you have to make the cutoff for reading comprehension, which is yet to be determined, as well be competative with bio and chem. She said that interviews are granted based on marks and DAT performance; however, there was no mention of cutoffs for bio and chem. I would guess that the RC cutoff is going to be around 19-20 this year but that is purely speculation. Any which way - this year, I assume, is going to be even more competative than last year based on the increased number of applicants so I would be hoping for as high as possible on those DAT scores, especially in the AA for western.

[braces2005]

Last year,

 

UWO had waiting lists for interviews. I suspect the same this year. I'm predicting the quality of applicants will surely be greater this year. That means both the DATs and grade/GPA quality will be greater. The academic ability of students from the class of UWO 2010 is very high. The class does overall very well in each dental subject area.

 

 

Everybody should work hard at keeping their grades up and I suggest you start preparing for those interviews. You think it's far but it's not that far away. Interviewing is a SKILL it needs to be developed. Dont think it's easy.

You need to PREPARE.