Confessions from a rookie DSAC member My experience as a first-timer on the UMKC dental school admissions committee
by PRABU RAMAN, DDS
Editor’s Note: In the last issue of the Focus, we provided a look at the UMKC School of Dentistry admissions process. This article is a follow-up to that from Dr. Prabu Raman (UMKC 83), who is a private practice dentist and is in his second term on the Admissions Committee.
If you’re like me, you probably have some pre- conceived ideas about the student admission process at the UMKC School of Dentistry (SOD). I am guessing that not all of those ideas are positive, either. I confess—that was me … that was me before I served on the UMKC Dental Student Admissions Committee (DSAC)
Then, at a 2010 Greater Kansas City Dental Society board meeting, Dr. John Killip, Associ- ate Dean of Student Programs at UMKC SOD announced that he wanted to add a private practice dentist to the DSAC. I was intrigued by the idea and expressed an interest. To apply for the position, I was asked to write a brief essay on why I should be selected.
When Dr. Killip contacted me later about being selected, he gave me two options: to attend the DSAC as an observer or as a full member. From late September through early December, the DSAC meets every Thursday from 4:30 p.m. till about 9 p.m. Prior to these meetings, the committee members need to review the files of the candidates assigned to them, taking 90 to 120 minutes each. As an observer, I would not have to review the candidates’ files ahead of time, but as such would not have a vote either. If I chose to become a voting member, then I would be assigned candidate files like other members. Dr. Killip understood that as a private practice dentist with scheduled patients, and other commitments to dentistry, it may be difficult to serve as a full member. However, I believed that if I was going to commit to some- thing, I wanted be a full participant.
Having now finished the first year of my DSAC commitment, it has given me a new-found appreciation for the work the Committee does.
These are dedicated faculty, staff and student members who spend many hours on DSAC work. To assure uniformity between members, a set of guidelines and protocols are in place.
A review matrix is used as we scrutinize the candidates’ files. This matrix strikes a balance between objective and subjective evaluations. Points, totaling 100, are given in the follow- ing categories: academics, critical thinking and coping skills, dental orientation, personal at- tributes, and commitment to community. There also are bonus points for other aspects, such as commitment to Missouri, UMKC SOD legacy, commitment to underserved communities, etc., with a maximum attainable bonus points set at six. Re-applicants may gain up to two addi- tional points for demonstrated improvements or lose up to two points for lack thereof.
Besides these point totals, there is a global evaluation from the evaluator based on the entire application file. This may be an “Excep- tional”, “Strongly recommend”, “Recommend”,
EARLY I IDENTIFIC TION •INTERVENTIONINTERVENTION TREATMENT •REHABILITATION
EARL DENTIFICATION Learn more at
www.modental.org/wellbeing or call 314-435-1101 for confidential help 48 focus | NOV/DEC 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60