Average USMLE Step 1 scores by school

[witness23]

Actually no, the only "chat" I remember seeing Erin Andrews have was with Rey Maualuga... during the Rose Bowl

hahaha you would love this then

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[nlax30]

HAHAHA.... that is hilarious, can't believe I hadn't seen that before. I can't stand Tebow.

 

[RoadRunner17]

hahaha you would love this then

you sir, are my hero

 

[BJPENNSTATE]

hahaha you would love this then

this is a joke right? i knew erin andrews was trashy..but...

 

[SDN2013]

this is a joke right? i knew erin andrews was trashy..but...

you are joking, right?

 

[nlax30]

 

[IHeartNerds]

Too bad it is.

Our average was somewhere between 240-242 last year (march 2008 matchers). I have the actual data by specialty but am too lazy to re-calculate the exact weighted #. So, some truth to high numbers rather than just hype

edit to say, i seriously doubt any intervention at penn made these people get high numbers, rather it's just a correlation.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

UNC was like 227, i believe.

 

[Blesbok]

Our average was somewhere between 240-242 last year (march 2008 matchers). I have the actual data by specialty but am too lazy to re-calculate the exact weighted #. So, some truth to high numbers rather than just hype

edit to say, i seriously doubt any intervention at penn made these people get high numbers, rather it's just a correlation.

I would like to see proof of this...

 

[alwaysaangel]

Well, I got my info from the USMLE website -- posted in June 2008:

"...We anticipate that the entire (redesign) process will take a minimum of four years – and quite possibly longer before it will impact any test-takers..."

Just saying that people entering medical school a couple of years from now might have a very different structure than what we have now. Many medical schools faculties are already investigating curriculum changes to accommodate a new licensing exam -- I know it's on the radar at my school.

Yeah they're working on it. A nurse in our admin spent a week on the east coast over the summer going to meetings with NBME about the changes they're going to make. They're getting close.

 

[dbhvt]

I would like to see proof of this...

I'm not surprised Iheartnerds has these data. P&S gives students step scores and other variables according to match also. It helps us make decisions about where we might be competitive. The school has no incentive to mess with those numbers (particularly because we're not supposed to release them).

 

[Blesbok]

I'm not surprised Iheartnerds has these data. P&S gives students step scores and other variables according to match also. It helps us make decisions about where we might be competitive. The school has no incentive to mess with those numbers (particularly because we're not supposed to release them).

I don't doubt he has the data...I just doubt the average.

 

[dbhvt]

I don't doubt he has the data...I just doubt the average.

So you think he has the data, knows the true mean, and is lying in order to make him feel better/make Penn look good?

 

[fewcherpeedsdoc]

Is there a place where we can look up average USMLE scores of students by school?

You guys wanna start one? Based on what you know about this year?

i think the best thing you can do since the info isnt published is to just look at the posted residency matches that schools post online. see the general matches that the school gets. i am saying this since you have to do well on your USMLE to get into a good residency program...

 

[ChiDO]

i think the best thing you can do since the info isnt published is to just look at the posted residency matches that schools post online. see the general matches that the school gets. i am saying this since you have to do well on your USMLE to get into a good residency program...

Unfortunately this is a terrible idea as that absolutely gives you nothing.

For example: Matched ortho USMLE 225 (25th %ile) - 245 (75th %ile).

So, if the school has 5 ortho matches, you have a 20-30 score range that those fall into. The same can be said about every program. Maybe someone with a 250 decided to go into FM. Too many unknowns, thus your idea would not work at all.

 

[gplex86]

Why is it so hard to grasp that:

"Med school is what you make of it"
"All med schools teach the same thing"
"The USMLE is what you put into it"
"Go where you'll be happiest"
"Do what makes you happy."
"US News is sold on the same rack as People"

 

[alwaysaangel]

Unfortunately this is a terrible idea as that absolutely gives you nothing.

For example: Matched ortho USMLE 225 (25th %ile) - 245 (75th %ile).

So, if the school has 5 ortho matches, you have a 20-30 score range that those fall into. The same can be said about every program. Maybe someone with a 250 decided to go into FM. Too many unknowns, thus your idea would not work at all.

Not only that but you may have some classes where there were people with 250s who really wanted to go into FM or EM.

Matching isn't a mathmatical equation its not like everyone goes into the highest possible scoring specialty based on their score.

Match lists ALSO useless.

 

[medhearter]

--------------------------------

 

[olemissbabydoc]

Why is it so hard to grasp that:

"Med school is what you make of it"
"All med schools teach the same thing"
"The USMLE is what you put into it"
"Go where you'll be happiest"
"Do what makes you happy."
"US News is sold on the same rack as People"

Best quotes ever.

 

[MegaProjectile]

"US News is sold on the same rack as People"

So is Time, Newsweek, The Economist, New York Times etc...are these also disqualified from use as sources of educational reference and other scholarly endeavors?

 

[gplex86]

So is Time, Newsweek, The Economist, New York Times etc...are these also disqualified from use as sources of educational reference and other scholarly endeavors?

Disqualified - yes. These are journalistic sources. The content is driven by editors and advertising dollars. They are not peer-reviewed. They are prone to sensationalism. They often reflect opinion and as such are not a true presentation of the facts. An intriguing starting point for further investigation? Sure.

If (for example) JAMA came out with a rankings list, I might take it more seriously. But I'd also be able to examine their data, their detailed methods, their authors, and their references. I'd also get to see counter-arguments from other journals and scientists on PubMed, Ovid, etc. Just because it's in JAMA doesn't make it true, either.

Of course, no actual institution of science or academics would attempt to produce a ranked list based on unquantifiable data, collected via dubious methods for a suspect purpose. Hence - Newsweek. If you want to learn more about medical schools, consult the MSAR and, in general, do your own research.

 

[MegaProjectile]

Disqualified - yes. These are journalistic sources. The content is driven by editors and advertising dollars. They are not peer-reviewed. They are prone to sensationalism. They often reflect opinion and as such are not a true presentation of the facts. An intriguing starting point for further investigation? Sure.

If (for example) JAMA came out with a rankings list, I might take it more seriously. But I'd also be able to examine their data, their detailed methods, their authors, and their references. I'd also get to see counter-arguments from other journals and scientists on PubMed, Ovid, etc. Just because it's in JAMA doesn't make it true, either.

Of course, no actual institution of science or academics would attempt to produce a ranked list based on unquantifiable data, collected via dubious methods for a suspect purpose. Hence - Newsweek. If you want to learn more about medical schools, consult the MSAR and, in general, do your own research.

Paragraph 1: You are actually elevating tabloids from their meager status since these papers spend millions in research and fact finding while tabloids don't. As a rule thumb, every paper has an opinion piece/editorials and those are to be taken with a grain of salt. Their other news stories can be checked out with other news sources for accuracy. 1 + 1 does not equal 3. Check your logic.

Paragraph 2: US News and other big pubs have their own references, statistics, methodologies etc listed on their website on how they compute their findings. You can disagree with their methodology but the idea that somehow it's all done cryptically or using guilt-by-association(where it's sold) as way of imputing doubt is absurd. So I should discontinue my subscription to Nature because is sold next to Rachel Ray's 30 Minute Meals?
As someone who is actually published, peer-review doesn't mean much at all. As long as there is a Phd behind your research, you'll get published.It's not the holy grail as some premeds have made it out to be.

P3: Of course few schools would attempt such since there is an inherent bias, perceive or actual, which would cast a shadow on the study. That's why non-academic institutions undertake such tasks.

 

[gplex86]

Mega,

If you can't understand the difference between a news publication and a peer reviewed scientific journal article, then I can't help you. If I had cited Newsweek in my research, I would have been laughed off the stage.

 

[MegaProjectile]

Mega,

If you can't understand the difference between a news publication and a peer reviewed scientific journal article, then I can't help you. If I had cited Newsweek in my research, I would have been laughed off the stage.

Why would you? One is a scientific research journal(JAMA, NEJM) and the other covers main events and public interests(Time,Newsweek).So it's only appropriate to use the rightful medium for your research.
But should Newsweek be relegated to the same standard as tabloids due to its of site purchase or ease of access, which was your original premise? No. (I have already explained this point earlier.)

Both have different functions and you should not start creating hierarchies.

 

[Law2Doc]

So you think he has the data, knows the true mean, and is lying in order to make him feel better/make Penn look good?

No -- he's saying he doesn't doubt that the poster has what he is told is data. But that it comes from an unaudited source and can't be trusted.

 

[Law2Doc]

i think the best thing you can do since the info isnt published is to just look at the posted residency matches that schools post online. see the general matches that the school gets. i am saying this since you have to do well on your USMLE to get into a good residency program...

Premeds have NO idea what a good "match" is -- and most graduating med students are only going to have a vague idea of what a good match is outside of the specialty they are looking at. This is a word of mouth buisness you learn from a mentor in the field, not one you know from a list. You don't know what the best programs are in each specialty -- they simply don't track the US news listings. Some of the best places in certain specialties won't be affiliated with the most prestigious med schools. There are big name places with truly malignant programs in certain fields, and no school is good in every specialty -- usually at any big name place they are perhaps very good in one or two specialties, very mediocre in a bunch more and sometimes downright malignant in one or two. So you can't go by name or specialty unless you know a lot more. And there are people who on paper look like they matched well, but are very unhappy since it was, eg. their third or fourth choice. And that's after they already were screened by a couple dozen places who didn't want to interview them. If everybody got what looked good on paper, but everybody was unhappy that by definition is one of the worst matches, and yet looking at the match list, you might think that was a good result. So no you NEVER want to look at a match list when trying to select a school. It seems counter intuitive, but take it from someone who tried to use these when applying -- it doesn't tell you what you think it does, and using bad data is always worse than using no data. And as mentioned it is not a good proxy for high board scores because people are not going to the most competitive thing they can get, they are going into what they want to do for the next 40 years. In this respect, it is VERY different than applying to med school where perhaps prestige plays a bigger role. You might go to Harvard because you can, but you aren't going to devote you entire life to ortho just because you can -- you have to want to do that for a living.

 

[exoslimjim]

Why is it so hard to grasp that:

"Med school is what you make of it"
"All med schools teach the same thing"
"The USMLE is what you put into it"
"Go where you'll be happiest"
"Do what makes you happy."
"US News is sold on the same rack as People"

i dont think most people would turn down an acceptance to hopkins/harvard/ucsf or watever... and y is that?

i would think that all med schools will prepare you to be a MD, but no med school is the same and they don't offer the same education. think about it, if that was the case, y do people even make choices about a school?

I was told by my interviewer that mayo had an 240 average last yr or the year before and there are state and unranked schools with an 80% pass rate and somehow have an above average board score. If everyone uses match lists to guage the quality of med students from schools, i dont see y scores can't be used to decide where you would want to go.

 

[gplex86]

Why would you? One is a scientific research journal(JAMA, NEJM) and the other covers main events and public interests(Time,Newsweek).So it's only appropriate to use the rightful medium for your research.
But should Newsweek be relegated to the same standard as tabloids due to its of site purchase or ease of access, which was your original premise? No. (I have already explained this point earlier.)

Both have different functions and you should not start creating hierarchies.

The hierarchy already exists. The New York Times is on the newsstand, US News is on the magazine rack, and the Enquirer is next to the register. The scientific research journals aren't even in the supermarket (because that's where these things are sold) but rather in the library.

If you want to learn about tree-frogs in Nature, then that's cool. But using a newsmagazine to qualify medical and educational institutions is crazy, unless you're the layman, in which case you just wouldn't know any better.

 

[exoslimjim]

Mega,

If you can't understand the difference between a news publication and a peer reviewed scientific journal article, then I can't help you. If I had cited Newsweek in my research, I would have been laughed off the stage.

just wanted to point out, nature, science, cell, nejm, jama, in fact nearly every journal publishes news too which are cited. In many journals if not most, commentaries, responses, and perspectives generally undergo editorial review, but not peer review.

but i think that even if the US News ranking is not fair, it is at least one decent perspective. and im defining decent as they give a reason for their ranking.

 

[gplex86]

i dont think most people would turn down an acceptance to hopkins/harvard/ucsf or watever... and y is that?

i would think that all med schools will prepare you to be a MD, but no med school is the same and they don't offer the same education. think about it, if that was the case, y do people even make choices about a school?

I was told by my interviewer that mayo had an 240 average last yr or the year before and there are state and unranked schools with an 80% pass rate and somehow have an above average board score. If everyone uses match lists to guage the quality of med students from schools, i dont see y scores can't be used to decide where you would want to go.

First, people do turn down Hopkins/Harvard for cheaper state schools, or places with more financial aid. People turn down (or don't apply to) places they can't move to because of their family/spouse. Anecdote alert: a good friend of mine from Michigan would have had a great shot at "top" schools, but he only applied in-state. He's at MSU-CHM and won't be held back by anything.

Second, at the core, all med schools have to provide an education that meets LCME standards and prepares their students for the USMLE.

Third, look at your numbers. If the worst 20% of students didn't pass the USMLE, then their numbers are being dropped from what is likely a "pass" average. This is why USMLE scores are a bad metric.

 

[exoslimjim]

The hierarchy already exists. The New York Times is on the newsstand, US News is on the magazine rack, and the Enquirer is next to the register. The scientific research journals aren't even in the supermarket (because that's where these things are sold) but rather in the library.

If you want to learn about tree-frogs in Nature, then that's cool. But using a newsmagazine to qualify medical and educational institutions is crazy, unless you're the layman, in which case you just wouldn't know any better.

ur point is not entirely accurate. NYT, US News appeals to different audeinces. sorta like y u dont find cereal in the fruit section. npg, cpg, aaas, and nas are generally self sustaining, meaning that they also have a commercial interest. they wouldnt have a new sstand for JBC although its the most highly cited journal because the majority of people dont care about it even tho academia does.

 

[Law2Doc]

...
I was told by my interviewer that mayo had an 240 average last yr or the year before and there are state and unranked schools with an 80% pass rate and somehow have an above average board score. If everyone uses match lists to guage the quality of med students from schools, i dont see y scores can't be used to decide where you would want to go.

Nobody knowledgeable uses match lists to gauge the quality of med students from schools, so I think you went off the track with this statement already. But no US med school has an 80% pass rate, and so I'd regard the average given for any school from this source equally skeptical. NO med schools can be trusted to give an honest number, because (1) they already as a group agreed that these numbers aren't to be released, and (2) there is no auditing of how they calculate the number, even if they are "trying" to be honest. Do they include folks who failed and retook? In what year do they put the PhD folks? There is no convention so places take liberties. No auditing means no honesty. So EVERY school gets to claim to be above average, and every school that does well claims a 240. Don't buy any of it. Be shrewd. Doesn't really matter because it shoudn't matter to you at all -- that a year four years ahead of you did well has no bearing on how you, personally, are going to do. It's not a school effort, it's an individual one. And you are a very different individual than the folks 4 years ahead of you.

 

[exoslimjim]

First, people do turn down Hopkins/Harvard for cheaper state schools, or places with more financial aid. People turn down (or don't apply to) places they can't move to because of their family/spouse. Anecdote alert: a good friend of mine from Michigan would have had a great shot at "top" schools, but he only applied in-state. He's at MSU-CHM and won't be held back by anything.

Second, at the core, all med schools have to provide an education that meets LCME standards and prepares their students for the USMLE.

Third, look at your numbers. If the worst 20% of students didn't pass the USMLE, then their numbers are being dropped from what is likely a "pass" average. This is why USMLE scores are a bad metric.

i dont mean to draw this out. but i think you hear that everywhere you go... that a friend or a person could have gone to harvard or hopkins.... but didnt. but msu is a great school and congrats to ur friend. my point is that there are so many great schools, but there are also those that are less so. people choose their particular schools based on many things, whether it was the only school they got in, the US news rank, money. i dont see anything wrong in using the USMLE score to help in a person's judgement.

 

[Law2Doc]

...
i would think that all med schools will prepare you to be a MD, but no med school is the same and they don't offer the same education. think about it, if that was the case, y do people even make choices about a school?
...

They all have their tweaks, but yeah, they pretty much are the same -- You'd be hard pressed to suggest that any place offered a "better" education. You have to cover the same material to ge licensed, and so all schools do it in some fashion. And then you study individually, using virtually the identical First Aid, the same qbanks, the same board reviews, and take the only test that really matters as an individual, not at your school. You will ultimately end up working under folks you think are amazing who come from a wide range of schools. You will hear that residency programs like to take folks from XYZ school because that school does a better job of training clinicians than the top schools. The key differences of schools, which probably don't translate to being a better doctor, are things like resources -- does the school have enough cadavers, good technology, research opportunities, grading systems -- does the school eliminate gunnerism by eliminating grades or pit folks against each other? This is the kind of thing that makes it important to choose one school from another. The rest is pretty insignificant in terms of the education you get -- you will do well or poorly regardless of where you go -- it's a very individualized effort and the things that matter the most tend to be standardized tests external to the school, which you would tend to do just as well on regardless of where you went to med school.

 

[Law2Doc]

... i dont see anything wrong in using the USMLE score to help in a person's judgement.

There perhaps would be nothing wrong with using it if you had an honest answer. But you don't-- you have whatever fluff a school chooses to feed it's applicants. It's unaudited so they can decide they are above average or have X score however they want. There is no convention as to how to calculate scores -- what years do the PhDs get put in, how do they handle retakes, etc etc. Lots of possible ways to calculate. Don't buy it. Using bad data to make a decision is ALWAYS worse than using no data at all. And since board scores are not release or audited anyplace they are always bad data -- not to be trusted.

 

[gplex86]

i dont mean to draw this out. but i think you hear that everywhere you go... that a friend or a person could have gone to harvard or hopkins.... but didnt. but msu is a great school and congrats to ur friend. my point is that there are so many great schools, but there are also those that are less so. people choose their particular schools based on many things, whether it was the only school they got in, the US news rank, money. i dont see anything wrong in using the USMLE score to help in a person's judgement.

I'll defer to Law2Doc's post on this one and add the finances and location aspects.

 

[exoslimjim]

Nobody knowledgeable uses match lists to gauge the quality of med students from schools, so I think you went off the track with this statement already. But no US med school has an 80% pass rate, and so I'd regard the average given for any school from this source equally skeptical. NO med schools can be trusted to give an honest number, because (1) they already as a group agreed that these numbers aren't to be released, and (2) there is no auditing of how they calculate the number, even if they are "trying" to be honest. Do they include folks who failed and retook? In what year do they put the PhD folks? There is no convention so places take liberties. No auditing means no honesty. So EVERY school gets to claim to be above average, and every school that does well claims a 240. Don't buy any of it. Be shrewd. Doesn't really matter because it shoudn't matter to you at all -- that a year four years ahead of you did well has no bearing on how you, personally, are going to do. It's not a school effort, it's an individual one. And you are a very different individual than the folks 4 years ahead of you.

i dont buy that. I may have exaggerated, it was probably a 85-80% pass rate. And how do i kno? its my state school. and i've worked there for 4 yrs. i dont know the average besides the fact that they say its above average which i dont really buy. And im not quite gullible. 240 is friggin high, but considering mayo is a top hospital,the student faculty ratio, and being able to meet their students, it could be true. plus, ill pm u my interviewer if i can remember his name. i really dont think he would lower his moral code to brag to a measely interviewee.

there is rarely any independent or external auditing in research, because anything published is suppose to be reproducible. this means that scientists need and should be able to trust each other. I believe this can be extended into many other circumstances, especially in medicine. I would rather assume that I can trust the person next to me from the start rather than assuming anything else and regretting it later.

 

[gplex86]

.

there is rarely any independent or external auditing in research, because anything published is suppose to be reproducible. this means that scientists need and should be able to trust each other. I believe this can be extended into many other circumstances, especially in medicine. I would rather assume that I can trust the person next to me from the start rather than assuming anything else and regretting it later.

Then you are gullible. And you probably will regret it. Sorry. Part of makes science strong is that you don't just trust what you're told. It has to be proven.

 

[exoslimjim]

hmm.... maybe i was not reading ur posts correctly because i agree with you. I was just trying to say that we probably shouldnt be judgeing how others make their decisions. but basing a decision on skewed data is pretty detrimental.

and i agree, med school is an individual effort. i've met incredible students at schools that i had never heard of. but i think some schools are better at supporting their students than others.

 

[exoslimjim]

Then you are gullible. And you probably will regret it. Sorry. Part of makes science strong is that you don't just trust what you're told. It has to be proven.

not quite. And i dont speak for myself. Do u kno what would be the cost of research if u had to confrim all our ur citations?!

 

[Law2Doc]

Then you are gullible. And you probably will regret it. Sorry. Part of makes science strong is that you don't just trust what you're told. It has to be proven.

Agreed. I think you have to take all of these numbers with a grain of salt. That an interviewer tells you a number might just mean somebody told him a number. Unless somebody independent can audit the figures, forget it. They are what somebody decided is the party line. The schools don't agree how to report these numbers. No convention exists as to where to put PhDs. At a smaller school like Mayo, this would be important. No convention exists as to how to treat folks who failed and retook. When no system exists, you calculate the numbers however they best suit you, which may be totally different than how someone else would treat these factors. So again, an interschool agreement not to report the data, plus no convention as to how to calculate the data, plus no auditing of the data, plus an incentive to have high numbers, equals bad data. Doesn't matter where it's coming from or how much you trust the source. It's just nothing you want to rely on as gospel.

 

[VincentAdultman]

not quite. And i dont speak for myself. Do u kno what would be the cost of research if u had to confrim all our ur citations?!

Do "u" know that using AIM speak makes you look like a *****?

Can someone please give me a list of the med schools that are scoring below average on the Steps? We've already identified multiple schools that are in the 230-240 range, so it's only reasonable to assume that in order to hit the national mean there are several med schools that are barely hitting 200.

 

[Rzarecta]

i dont buy that. I may have exaggerated, it was probably a 85-80% pass rate. And how do i kno? its my state school.

Again, there is no US MD that only has a mid 80s pass rate on Step 1. Looking at the NBME data the pass rate for US allo first-time test takers is 95%.

 

[RoadRunner17]

So how does the scoring on the Step 1 work? Is it standardized on a bell curve, i.e. percentiles, like the MCAT? I mean, if it were the case then half the people would be failing. So how does it work exactly?

 

[Ashers]

So how does the scoring on the Step 1 work? Is it standardized on a bell curve, i.e. percentiles, like the MCAT? I mean, if it were the case then half the people would be failing. So how does it work exactly?

Your guess is as good as mine. No one really knows.

 

[Depakote]

So how does the scoring on the Step 1 work? Is it standardized on a bell curve, i.e. percentiles, like the MCAT? I mean, if it were the case then half the people would be failing. So how does it work exactly?

Best I can tell from the USMLE website it's a bell curve with the mean somewhere in the passing range.

The mean score for first-time examinees from accredited medical school programs in the United States is in the range of 210 to 230, and the standard deviation is approximately 20.

But that's just for US Allo programs...how they manipulate the scores to get that distribution? no clue.

 

[SoCuteMD]

FWIW, someone told me of a school that boasts a 230 average, but a sub-90% first time pass rate. The administration only counts passes when they calculate the average.

 

[gplex86]

Best I can tell from the USMLE website it's a bell curve with the mean somewhere in the passing range.

It's a bell curve with almost everyone passing (for US MD's)

 

[mdeast]

The USLME average at my school is usually pretty high (upper 230's). Does this matter to you? Absolutely not.

Top schools have high scores because they enroll top candidates who are good test-takers. The score most predictive of your Step 1 score is your MCAT score. Top schools have high MCAT score averages among enrolled student and thus, their Step 1 scores are high more so because of it's students work ethic and intelligence rather than any measurable difference in teaching capacity compared to peer schools with lower averages.

Thus, do not choose a school on Step 1 averages. Choose it on environment, curriculum, geography, whatever factors are important to you. The average at your school will most likely have nothing to do with your score.

 

[littlealex]

Why would you revive this from the dead mdeast? The people posting these are probably residents by now, I'm quite sure they're not picking schools based on step 1 averages.