chances with mediocre step 1

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
MinitorV

MinitorV

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
98
Reaction score
1
So I got my step 1 score back recently and received a 227. I was scoring 240 consistently but apparently it wasn't in the cards. Is a 227 going to keep me out of rads or is it still realistic? I know charting outcomes is getting older so figured I would ask around.

I also have had very good pre clinical grades with mostly honors and I am in the top quarter for class rank.
Members don't see this ad.
 
There's a 90%+ match rate for MD students with a 210+ so I think you're good.
 
Good to know sorry if this is an obnoxious question I know everyone hates these. I was just shocked at my score since I was doing so well so still trying to process how it effects my chances.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I am a U.S. allopathic student for clarification. What source was the 90%+ from?
 
MinitorV said:
I am a U.S. allopathic student for clarification. What source was the 90%+ from?
Click to expand...
Match data. Honestly, programs have lower step 1 cutoffs than people think. I made a 226 on step 1 and matched at a top 40 program (I know, bush league on SDN). I'm happy with the outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
MinitorV said:
Good to know sorry if this is an obnoxious question I know everyone hates these. I was just shocked at my score since I was doing so well so still trying to process how it effects my chances.
Click to expand...
Sorry about your disappointment, but as others have said, you'll match. It's only a part of your application, work hard and enjoy third year.
 
Last edited:
2324tigers said:
Match data. Honestly, programs have lower step 1 cutoffs than people think. I made a 226 on step 1 and matched at a top 40 program (I know, bush league on SDN). I'm happy with the outcome.
Click to expand...

I hate these "ranking systems." You couldn't pay me double my salary and give me a spot at USF or one of the "top tier" northeast programs. Whatever programs you like should be your "top tier" programs. Forget the rest.
 
tco said:
I hate these "ranking systems." You couldn't pay me double my salary and give me a spot at USF or one of the "top tier" northeast programs. Whatever programs you like should be your "top tier" programs. Forget the rest.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with USF?!?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
tco said:
Yeah, sorry. UCSF.

USF didn't impress me, either, FWIW :p
Click to expand...
What was it that made you hate UCSF's program? It's Rads program is top notch with respect to training.
 
DermViser said:
What was it that made you hate UCSF's program? It's Rads program is top notch with respect to training.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, I took a lot of things into consideration when assessing programs. Other than the training itself, these were some of them:

1. Residents - Are they Dbags or not? Every program has a few, but if I walk into the restaurant for the pre-interview dinner and I almost choke because it's so stuffy, I'm not ranking your program. I also did the beer test. I ordered a beer at every interview dinner I went to. I then assessed the looks of the residents when the order was made and the beer arrived. All programs passed. Hah.
2. Location/Area politics - to answer your question, I'm not a fan of California politics...At all. I have quite a few guns, and I wouldn't be able to take them with me, or I'd have to get special magazines for my pistols to limit the number of rounds they can carry. That's absolutely *****ic. I know it sounds silly, but that's an important factor for me. I also didn't want to go somewhere with snow (not that SF has snow). I'm sick of it. I'm sick of sliding around in it when walking. I'm sick of driving over 5 inches of it with ice under it. I'm sick of scraping it off of my windshield. That took all of the northeast programs off of my list.
3. Quality of life - This is where some really great programs suffered. As you know, I want to do IR, and there were a few programs that have great training in IR for their residents (Kaiser LA is the top of my list for such a program) that I just couldn't hack going to because the quality of life was so low given the salary and the cost of living. Many California programs fit into this.
4. Moonlighting - Again, this might sound silly, but I feel that if a program has numerous moonlighting opportunities in place, it's a surrogate for their interest in resident happiness.
5. Semi-related to training, research opportunities.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
tco said:
I agree. However, I took a lot of things into consideration when assessing programs. Other than the training itself, these were some of them:

1. Residents - Are they Dbags or not? Every program has a few, but if I walk into the restaurant for the pre-interview dinner and I almost choke because it's so stuffy, I'm not ranking your program. I also did the beer test. I ordered a beer at every interview dinner I went to. I then assessed the looks of the residents when the order was made and the beer arrived. All programs passed. Hah.
2. Location/Area politics - to answer your question, I'm not a fan of California politics...At all. I have quite a few guns, and I wouldn't be able to take them with me, or I'd have to get special magazines for my pistols to limit the number of rounds they can carry. That's absolutely *****ic. I know it sounds silly, but that's an important factor for me. I also didn't want to go somewhere with snow (not that SF has snow). I'm sick of it. I'm sick of sliding around in it when walking. I'm sick of driving over 5 inches of it with ice under it. I'm sick of scraping it off of my windshield. That took all of the northeast programs off of my list.
3. Quality of life - This is where some really great programs suffered. As you know, I want to do IR, and there were a few programs that have great training in IR for their residents (Kaiser LA is the top of my list for such a program) that I just couldn't hack going to because the quality of life was so low given the salary and the cost of living. Many California programs fit into this.
4. Moonlighting - Again, this might sound silly, but I feel that if a program has numerous moonlighting opportunities in place, it's a surrogate for their interest in resident happiness.
5. Semi-related to training, research opportunities.
Click to expand...

This is a great way to go about ranking programs.
 
tco said:
I agree. However, I took a lot of things into consideration when assessing programs. Other than the training itself, these were some of them:

1. Residents - Are they Dbags or not? Every program has a few, but if I walk into the restaurant for the pre-interview dinner and I almost choke because it's so stuffy, I'm not ranking your program. I also did the beer test. I ordered a beer at every interview dinner I went to. I then assessed the looks of the residents when the order was made and the beer arrived. All programs passed. Hah.
2. Location/Area politics - to answer your question, I'm not a fan of California politics...At all. I have quite a few guns, and I wouldn't be able to take them with me, or I'd have to get special magazines for my pistols to limit the number of rounds they can carry. That's absolutely *****ic. I know it sounds silly, but that's an important factor for me. I also didn't want to go somewhere with snow (not that SF has snow). I'm sick of it. I'm sick of sliding around in it when walking. I'm sick of driving over 5 inches of it with ice under it. I'm sick of scraping it off of my windshield. That took all of the northeast programs off of my list.
3. Quality of life - This is where some really great programs suffered. As you know, I want to do IR, and there were a few programs that have great training in IR for their residents (Kaiser LA is the top of my list for such a program) that I just couldn't hack going to because the quality of life was so low given the salary and the cost of living. Many California programs fit into this.
4. Moonlighting - Again, this might sound silly, but I feel that if a program has numerous moonlighting opportunities in place, it's a surrogate for their interest in resident happiness.
5. Semi-related to training, research opportunities.
Click to expand...

Few things to add.
- Large programs are more stable over time than smaller program. Also you will get to know many more people during your training. It will help you in the future.

- A lot of big programs have also great fellowships and their own residents have the first pass.

- Location is important and definitely as a resident your salary is below average in California. However, if you want to end in California, you have much better chance if you do your training in California. You talked about IR. Who do you think will get the best IR jobs in California? Most of the time it is their own resident who does fellowship with them or is sent for fellowship to another program. Private groups are also partial towards UCLA or UCSF over east coast programs. If you don't want to live in California in the future, no point in doing your residency there. On the other hand, if you want to stay in California in the future, doing your residency there is a HUGE positive factor. Breaking into California or NY or Boston or even Chicago markets without doing training there is very hard.

- I personally won't consider moonlighting as a factor. By the time you become a second or third residents (3-4 years after interview) things will be very different. Don't get surprised if the moonlighting is not there anymore.

- Research per se is not important at all unless you want to do academics. Nobody in pp cares about your research background.

Bottom line: Location and connection are more important than you think. Not uncommon for a group to choose someone from the local residency program that they know over a graduate of MGH with two fellowships in IR and Neuro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
shark2000 said:
Few things to add.
- Large programs are more stable over time than smaller program. Also you will get to know many more people during your training. It will help you in the future.

- A lot of big programs have also great fellowships and their own residents have the first pass.

- Location is important and definitely as a resident your salary is below average in California. However, if you want to end in California, you have much better chance if you do your training in California. You talked about IR. Who do you think will get the best IR jobs in California? Most of the time it is their own resident who does fellowship with them or is sent for fellowship to another program. Private groups are also partial towards UCLA or UCSF over east coast programs. If you don't want to live in California in the future, no point in doing your residency there. On the other hand, if you want to stay in California in the future, doing your residency there is a HUGE positive factor. Breaking into California or NY or Boston or even Chicago markets without doing training there is very hard.

- I personally won't consider moonlighting as a factor. By the time you become a second or third residents (3-4 years after interview) things will be very different. Don't get surprised if the moonlighting is not there anymore.

- Research per se is not important at all unless you want to do academics. Nobody in pp cares about your research background.

Bottom line: Location and connection are more important than you think. Not uncommon for a group to choose someone from the local residency program that they know over a graduate of MGH with two fellowships in IR and Neuro.
Click to expand...


These are all very good points. As you addressed, however, I have no desire to end up in California. Ever.

If the moonlighting opportunities that are in place at my future institution are no longer there, it would actually be a shock, not the other way around. There's so much work at the Texas Medical Center that it would be foolish for those opportunities to go away. It would mean they hired more attendings to cover, which would be a silly move financially. MD Anderson, the VA, and UTH love the current set up. I think there would be rioting in the break room if it went away.

Like I said, those were *some* of the additional points I considered along the way. I also wanted to live in a city, preferably in the southwest. My criteria shouldn't be considered by anyone other than me, however.
 
tco said:
These are all very good points. As you addressed, however, I have no desire to end up in California. Ever.

If the moonlighting opportunities that are in place at my future institution are no longer there, it would actually be a shock, not the other way around. There's so much work at the Texas Medical Center that it would be foolish for those opportunities to go away. It would mean they hired more attendings to cover, which would be a silly move financially. MD Anderson, the VA, and UTH love the current set up. I think there would be rioting in the break room if it went away.

Like I said, those were *some* of the additional points I considered along the way. I also wanted to live in a city, preferably in the southwest. My criteria shouldn't be considered by anyone other than me, however.
Click to expand...

You made a very good choice. Great program, very good reputation and very good location.

As we both agree, choosing a program has both personal and general components.
 
OP, I bothered to read the match results report today on the NRMP website. In the highlights section in the introductory pages, they wrote that the number of radiology applications is the lowest its been in 15 years. If a 220ish was good enough in 2011 when Charting Outcomes was last published, it's even more acceptable now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
shark2000 said:
Few things to add.
- Large programs are more stable over time than smaller program. Also you will get to know many more people during your training. It will help you in the future.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be a 'large program?'
 
You will be fine. I have a lower score than you and I ended up getting a spot in a program.
 
greg1184 said:
You will be fine. I have a lower score than you and I ended up getting a spot in a program.
Click to expand...

-Fill rates by U.S. seniors (categorical: 59.1% and advanced: 68.9%) and all applicants (categorical: 88.3%
and advanced: 94.2%) for Diagnostic Radiology were among the lowest in the past 15 years.

Radiology may very well be the next Pathology...
 
IJL said:
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be a 'large program?'
Click to expand...

Solid academic programs are considered large to me. I don't mean necessary a lot of residents.

Many state universities are in this category in addition to Ivy league medical centers.
 
Baller MD said:
-Fill rates by U.S. seniors (categorical: 59.1% and advanced: 68.9%) and all applicants (categorical: 88.3%
and advanced: 94.2%) for Diagnostic Radiology were among the lowest in the past 15 years.

Radiology may very well be the next Pathology...
Click to expand...
Doubt it. There will always be a need for reading of imaging.
 
DermViser said:
Doubt it. There will always be a need for reading of imaging.
Click to expand...

Huh? I can say the same thing about pathology like how there's always a need for someone to read a slide... I guess I should've been clearer as I was referring to the current job market of rads vs path, and the declining interests in rads among med students.
 
At the highest levels (basically the programs that have name recognition), radiology is still as competitive as ever.
But otherwise, it's not so competitive anymore.
I'm not going into rads but my friend is.

Source for the above statement: Letter read word for word to me by a department chair from winter 2014's annual American College of Radiology match report meant for the program directors of each radiology training institution.
 
wamcp said:
http://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1440(13)00766-7/abstract

Radiology is less competitive than OB GYN. You will be fine matching.
Click to expand...

Totally BS

Even in 2013 when OBGYN had a higher US senior match percentage and a higher overall match rate than radiology, its averge step 1 was a 221 compared to 238 of radiology. We don't have data yet from this year but I doubt things will change much since radiology at above average programs is still extremely competitive. http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/resultsanddata2013.pdf

However, the OP should not have any trouble matching as long as there are no geographic limitations.

Good Luck
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
MinitorV said:
So I got my step 1 score back recently and received a 227. I was scoring 240 consistently but apparently it wasn't in the cards. Is a 227 going to keep me out of rads or is it still realistic? I know charting outcomes is getting older so figured I would ask around.

I also have had very good pre clinical grades with mostly honors and I am in the top quarter for class rank.
Click to expand...

230/240 carib student and I got a spot (most likely to the dismay of everyone reading this.) So hopefully you'll be able to get a spot.
 
je355804 said:
230/240 carib student and I got a spot (most likely to the dismay of everyone reading this.) So hopefully you'll be able to get a spot.
Click to expand...

A non-us citizen img friend of mine with 220/249 matched into Opthalmology at a university program.

You should consider yourself to be a failure in life.
 
There is not point in fighting over it like this.
If you like radiology go for it. Why do you care whether it is more or less competitive that OB-Gyn?

I guarantee that most if not all OB-Gyn doctors in my hospital would change their job with my job in a heartbeat if they could.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
shark2000 said:
There is not point in fighting over it like this.
If you like radiology go for it. Why do you care whether it is more or less competitive that OB-Gyn?

I guarantee that most if not all OB-Gyn doctors in my hospital would change their job with my job in a heartbeat if they could.
Click to expand...
Probably more that if it's less competitive than OB-Gyn, they don't feel as much pressure. More an ego boost. That being said, it's not true, but I guess whatever mind trick you need to do.
 
2324tigers said:
Match data. Honestly, programs have lower step 1 cutoffs than people think. I made a 226 on step 1 and matched at a top 40 program (I know, bush league on SDN). I'm happy with the outcome.
Click to expand...

I'm at a top 80 school and I made a 219!


lol, @OP.. make a graph and see how low you can go!
 
wamcp said:
http://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1440(13)00766-7/abstract

Radiology is less competitive than OB GYN. You will be fine matching.
Click to expand...

Radiology is still perceived as competitive by most medical students outside of SDN and Auntminnie, so there continues to be fairly noticeable self-selection happening where people think "well, with my score I think I'll have a better shot at something else.." and choose a different specialty. A lot of PD's also haven't quite accepted the fact that their specialty has become less popular and I still see some mid to lower tier programs using 230 as cutoffs and being too picky with their ranking lists, which seems to be resulting in a large number of unfilled spots. I don't think I would call rads less competitive than ob/gyn.

Radiology's average step 1 still hovers close to 240 despite having well over 1000 residency spots around the country. That's pretty impressive.

That said, yes OP will be absolutely fine matching rads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Thanks guys I appreciate the input. Does anyone know more about the IR residency spots that are going to be opening up for next years match? I've heard this is happening but have seen very little solid info out there.
 
Hi everyone! I've read through everyone's posts and they have been very helpful. I am 3rd yr osteopathic student and scored a 230 on my usmle -- I feel like my odds are slim of matching into an allopathic program based on the above 2. From what I've read my score is adequate but im not sure if that holds true as I will be a D.O when I graduate. Any advice?
 
greg1184 said:
You will be fine. I have a lower score than you and I ended up getting a spot in a program.
Click to expand...

Nice! If I may ask, what were your stats (you don't have to report the exact number, but a range would be good enough).
 
i am a M4 at allo school. Sub 230 step 1 and mediocre grades.

Applied 90 (dumb), 30+ interview invites including numerous good academic programs in big cities + a few california programs.

Heck a couple TYs as well.

Dunno where I will match but you will be fine.
 
qwerty89 said:
i am a M4 at allo school. Sub 230 step 1 and mediocre grades.

Applied 90 (dumb), 30+ interview invites including numerous good academic programs in big cities + a few california programs.

Heck a couple TYs as well.

Dunno where I will match but you will be fine.
Click to expand...

thanks, any research?
 
cocobutter said:
thanks, any research?
Click to expand...

Poster.

Also just FYI, the FRIEDA AMA website has some good info and some wrong/outdated info. For example some step 1 cutoffs listed I know are 100% wrong from personal experience.
 
qwerty89 said:
Poster.

Also just FYI, the FRIEDA AMA website has some good info and some wrong/outdated info. For example some step 1 cutoffs listed I know are 100% wrong from personal experience.
Click to expand...

I am a second author on a poster. That is better than nothing, right?
 
MinitorV said:
So I got my step 1 score back recently and received a 227. I was scoring 240 consistently but apparently it wasn't in the cards. Is a 227 going to keep me out of rads or is it still realistic? I know charting outcomes is getting older so figured I would ask around.

I also have had very good pre clinical grades with mostly honors and I am in the top quarter for class rank.
Click to expand...

You will be absolutely fine. There are plenty of spots with overall decreased competitiveness to the field.
 
Last edited:
qwerty89 said:
Poster.

Also just FYI, the FRIEDA AMA website has some good info and some wrong/outdated info. For example some step 1 cutoffs listed I know are 100% wrong from personal experience.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this info. I was wondering about the cutoffs since most programs haven't updated them in freida for years and the amount of US applicants has gone down significantly since then.

Do you think this was because of your high step 2 score or that programs have lowered their cutoffs? I've heard that many programs will consider you as long as one of your steps meets their cutoff. Let's say you get 215/240 and their cutoff is 230, they'll consider you because of your step 2. Anyone have any insight on this from this year or recent cycles?
 
a runner said:
Thanks for this info. I was wondering about the cutoffs since most programs haven't updated them in freida for years and the amount of US applicants has gone down significantly since then.

Do you think this was because of your high step 2 score or that programs have lowered their cutoffs? I've heard that many programs will consider you as long as one of your steps meets their cutoff. Let's say you get 215/240 and their cutoff is 230, they'll consider you because of your step 2. Anyone have any insight on this from this year or recent cycles?
Click to expand...

Step 2 doesn't mean much TBH. Most people do well on Step 2.
 
One of my interviewers seemed impressed with my step 2 score.

but TBH i think he thought it was my step 1 score...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread
Top