Med students matching: What do you wish you would have known/done in med school?

[imymemine]

so what i've gleaned from this thread...step 1 test day will be the most important day of my educational career. yet whenever a premed says they are considering a school based on their step results (baylor comes come to mind), med students swoop in and say that is an awful way of choosing a school. this seems contradictory, what am i missing?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[2012mdc]

so what i've gleaned from this thread...step 1 test day will be the most important day of my educational career. yet whenever a premed says they are considering a school based on their step results (baylor comes come to mind), med students swoop in and say that is an awful way of choosing a school. this seems contradictory, what am i missing?

Doing well on Step 1 is an individual thing.

Correlation =/= causation

You want to choose a school that has the right curriculum, environment, location, financial situation etc

 

[drizzt3117]

so what i've gleaned from this thread...step 1 test day will be the most important day of my educational career. yet whenever a premed says they are considering a school based on their step results (baylor comes come to mind), med students swoop in and say that is an awful way of choosing a school. this seems contradictory, what am i missing?

step averages reflect the quality of your peers, but doesn't necessarily mean the school does anything to prepare you for step 1. In fact, going to a school with a high step average can make your app look weaker if you don't do well.

 

[drizzt3117]

So would you also have similar advice for me to stick with irvine?

yep.

 

[loveoforganic]

so what i've gleaned from this thread...step 1 test day will be the most important day of my educational career. yet whenever a premed says they are considering a school based on their step results (baylor comes come to mind), med students swoop in and say that is an awful way of choosing a school. this seems contradictory, what am i missing?

Weighing in amount of dedicated step i study time probably isn't a bad idea, but other than that, there's too much selection bias in the student populations to really say much

 

[JackShephard MD]

so what i've gleaned from this thread...step 1 test day will be the most important day of my educational career. yet whenever a premed says they are considering a school based on their step results (baylor comes come to mind), med students swoop in and say that is an awful way of choosing a school. this seems contradictory, what am i missing?

I think there are two things going on here, your Step 1 score will be earned by you and not your school. In that respect, a person who does well will likely do well anywhere.

Yet, curriculum could affect your Step 1 score. What if your school had twice the amount of dedicated time as another school (3 vs 6 weeks or 4 vs 8 weeks) or what if you had excessive mandatory class time and mandatory assignments. Some schools tie up your day until 5pm while others let you free at noon everyday. PBL 1 hour a week or 6 hours a week (with assignments). Do you think that someone with twice as much free time could possibly do better? Sometimes a school has higher scores just due to selection bias, other times it's actually because the school is focused on maximizing students ability to do well.

 

[drizzt3117]

I think there are two things going on here, your Step 1 score will be earned by you and not your school. In that respect, a person who does well will likely do well anywhere.

Yet, curriculum could affect your Step 1 score. What if your school had twice the amount of dedicated time as another school (3 vs 6 weeks or 4 vs 8 weeks) or what if you had so much mandatory class time and mandatory assignments that had little to do with sciences. Some schools tie up your day until 5pm while others let you free at noon everyday. PBL 1 hour a week or 6 hours a week (with assignments). Do you think that someone with twice as much free time could possibly do better? Sometimes a school has higher scores just due to selection bias, other times it's actually because the school is focused on maximizing students ability to do well.

Wash U has 4 weeks to study for step 1 and they seem to do just fine with Step 1 averages > 240. Our school averaged 235 last year, up 7 points or something from our class without any change in curriculum. Perhaps the class below us just happened to have better test takers. The professors were the same, etc, as was the schedule. That being said, I did teach a step 1 group this past year (and this year) so maybe that was the difference

 

[imymemine]

Originally Posted by JackShephard MD
I think there are two things going on here, your Step 1 score will be earned by you and not your school. In that respect, a person who does well will likely do well anywhere.

Yet, curriculum could affect your Step 1 score. What if your school had twice the amount of dedicated time as another school (3 vs 6 weeks or 4 vs 8 weeks) or what if you had so much mandatory class time and mandatory assignments that had little to do with sciences. Some schools tie up your day until 5pm while others let you free at noon everyday. PBL 1 hour a week or 6 hours a week (with assignments). Do you think that someone with twice as much free time could possibly do better? Sometimes a school has higher scores just due to selection bias, other times it's actually because the school is focused on maximizing students ability to do well.

If my undergrad told me they would prepare me well for the MCAT when they were recruiting me I would have thought they were out of their mind...but this above is kind of what I was getting at, some medical schools DO seem to make it easier for you to succeed--I don't know what step 1 is actually like but I imagine it would be easier AFTER spending a year in rotations and actually applying all the stuff you've learned as an M2, which iirc is how some schools do it.

step averages reflect the quality of your peers, but doesn't necessarily mean the school does anything to prepare you for step 1. In fact, going to a school with a high step average can make your app look weaker if you don't do well.

but this is a good point too--it's probably no secret that some schools like baylor seem to "coddle" their students towards better board performance and i could see how a high score here might not mean as much to residency directors.

 

[Dermpath]

I love this post and here's why... had I trusted the advice of the "experts" on SDN, I would have been convinced that my chances of getting in to medical school and being successful were slim to none. As a non-traditional student, I had less than stellar grades from some UG classes very early in life and knew that it would be a challenge to improve my GPA. Indeed, it was... but I did not get all A's as it was suggested would be necessary. My MCAT was just a hair above average and yet I got in to medical not once, but twice. I was accepted in 2007 but decided not to go at that time. I finished a Master's and reapplied at a later date without retaking the MCAT. And now, as an MS2, although there have been subjects with which I struggled, I have not failed any nor had to re-mediate. Likewise, my CBSE scores, while not even close to predicting a 260 like a few of our top students, are nonetheless higher than several of my younger and presumably more intelligent classmates.

I recognize my limitations and while I will put forth my best effort on Step 1, I refuse to allow the naysayers to convince me that a "low" (call it <240) score will mean a career in my chosen specialty (whatever that might be) is out of the question. Perhaps I might have a harder time getting what I want, maybe I would have to be in a less desirable (whatever that is) program, or to have to apply more broadly... but it is no means an impossibility. Don't believe me? Take a look at the match statistics... http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2011.pdf

Since we keep talking about Derm, let me draw your attention to page 36. Now, when you look at the those applicants with a 201-210, you'll see that nearly 50% matched, and this figure went up slightly with scores of 211-220. While I'd admit those aren't great odds, they are far better than zero. And that's not all... if you look at the others specialties mentioned (anesthesiology, EM, Rads - not Oc Rads) you'll see that 85-95% of those scoring at 220 and below matched.

My point is this... if you read these posts and think "Well, I'm f***ed..." DON'T!! We all know this test is important, so study hard. But at the end of the day, recognize that there are a handful of students who beat the odds. Your challenge is to figure out what separated the two groups if you happen to be stuck with a score on the lower end for your desired specialty.

Best of luck to all of you!

Since we are talking about derm, please keep in mind that while some people with those scores may match, those people frequently also have PhD's and a ton of high end publications. Don't make the mistake of thinking that those people simply matched with those scores and nothing else. I know people with less than 200, 201, etc who also matched, but they also had PhD's and 15+ publications to accompany their apps. As someone who has applied and not matched in derm, make no mistake-derm is extremely difficult to match into, even for people with decent credentials. Further, the people with those scores who receive IVs are few. Usually over 400-500 people apply for derm every year, and since programs have the creme of the crop to choose, if you don't make the IV stage, you simply won't match.

I would dare to say that most other specialties-anesthesia, rads, EM, etc are decent to match into with decent stats, but high end specialties like derm, rad onc, ENT, ortho, etc are very very difficult to match into. Go ahead and give it a shot, but be prepared to have a hard time matching into CERTAIN specialties. Low scores are certainly not a dealbreaker in a number of very decent specialties.

 

[JackShephard MD]

Wash U has 4 weeks to study for step 1 and they seem to do just fine with Step 1 averages > 240. Our school averaged 235 last year, up 7 points or something from our class without any change in curriculum. Perhaps the class below us just happened to have better test takers. The professors were the same, etc, as was the schedule. That being said, I did teach a step 1 group this past year (and this year) so maybe that was the difference

I never said that it was one or the other, I just said that preparation time plays a role. Wash U obviously has an excellent set of students (#6 Ranking US News). Notice how I mentioned school schedules and other factors immediately after weeks off, because I was pointing out that there's a lot that goes into the curriculum.

I don't think the things you mentioned contradict my point, which is more opportunity CAN lead to a better score. Obviously schools with ~36 average MCAT will do pretty well regardless of other factors and certain classes will be better test takers than others.

Is your point that curriculum, including mandatory classes/activities, dedicated prep time, clinical activities during M1 and M2, have no effect on one's ability to focus on board prep?

 

[drizzt3117]

I think your step 1 score is primarily based on your own test taking abilities, how much you study, and what resources you use. I think other factors are much less important than these. Good students will do well regardless of circumstances and mediocre ones will do mediocre.

I never said that it was one or the other, I just said that preparation time plays a role. Wash U obviously has an excellent set of students (#6 Ranking US News). Notice how I mentioned school schedules and other factors immediately after weeks off, because I was pointing out that there's a lot that goes into the curriculum.

I don't think the things you mentioned contradict my point, which is more opportunity CAN lead to a better score. Obviously schools with ~36 average MCAT will do pretty well regardless of other factors and certain classes will be better test takers than others.

Is your point that curriculum, including mandatory classes/activities, dedicated prep time, clinical activities during M1 and M2, have no effect on one's ability to focus on board prep?

 

[JackShephard MD]

I think your step 1 score is primarily based on your own test taking abilities, how much you study, and what resources you use. I think other factors are much less important than these. Good students will do well regardless of circumstances and mediocre ones will do mediocre.

Agreed.

And I think it's difficult for you to say there is no set of circumstances that would preclude students from doing well. But the sentence sounds great and American. Obviously, I respect your opinion.

 

[drizzt3117]

Most of the top 25 schools have quite high step 1 averages (> 230) with Washington as a notable exception. Even though they have very different curriculua and schedules, the one thing they have in common is crushing step 1.

 

[JackShephard MD]

Most of the top 25 schools have quite high step 1 averages (> 230) with Washington as a notable exception. Even though they have very different curriculua and schedules, the one thing they have in common is crushing step 1.

One other thing in common: excellent schools with excellent students.

I believe we are saying the same thing, to use your quote:

I think your step 1 score is primarily based on your own test taking abilities, how much you study, and what resources you use. I think other factors are much less important than these.

Our only difference, is I believe "how much you study" can be affected by your curriculum depending on your learning style. When I went to lectures 8-5pm, I fared much worse in performance and understanding. If I had mandatory 8-5pm's M-F, I know I would do worse on Step 1 and in classes. I respect your opinion but do not agree that curriculum plays no role.

 

[drizzt3117]

What top 25 has mandatory 8-5 lectures? To that end, what school period has mandatory 8-5 lectures. My school had "mandatory" lectures at times, didn't stop me from skipping.

One other thing in common: excellent schools with excellent students.

I believe we are saying the same thing, to use your quote:



Our only difference, is I believe "how much you study" can be affected by your curriculum depending on your learning style. When I went to lectures 8-5pm, I fared much worse in performance and understanding. If I had mandatory 8-5pm's M-F, I know I would do worse on Step 1 and in classes. I respect your opinion but do not agree that curriculum plays no role.

 

[officedepot]

.

 

[drizzt3117]

If I didn't think I was a viable candidate for rads to match into my chosen geographic area I probably would have done EM or anesthesia. I like rads but I like a lot of areas of medicine.

I was actually wondering something about this... would you have followed the advice you're giving now if you were not as stellar an applicant as you are? Let's say you got a 230 on step 1 and maybe some rads research would you still be applying for rads or would you have chosen something you're more competitive for. Obviously you could still have matched somewhere in radiology but clearly would get better programs in other fields.

I know it's hard to speak to hypothetical questions but I think the point is that it's easy for some posters to sit here and say apply for something you're more competitive for even though that may be someone's second choice while that poster is competitive for everything.

 

[JackShephard MD]

What top 25 has mandatory 8-5 lectures? To that end, what school period has mandatory 8-5 lectures. My school had "mandatory" lectures at times, didn't stop me from skipping.

Lol.

Well, I will defer to your experience and success.

 

[SlickNickMD]

Doing well on Step 1 is an individual thing.

Correlation =/= causation

You want to choose a school that has the right curriculum, environment, location, financial situation etc

Preach

 

[Slack3r]

Wash U has 4 weeks to study for step 1 and they seem to do just fine with Step 1 averages > 240.

Wash U is also the biggest stat whoring school in the US. The median stats, per the MSAR, are 3.9 GPA and a 38 MCAT, do you honestly think that school WOULDN'T have a ridiculous Step 1 whether they had 4 weeks or 14 weeks to study?

 

[nowitspartytime]

where're you guys finding these step 1 averages?

 

[drizzt3117]

where're you guys finding these step 1 averages?

They're self-reported by the schools; in my case I was told the number by one of our deans.

 

[VenusinFurs]

I wish I'd taken several years off, gotten a real job before applying to med school.

 

[45408]

I really know nothing about the match (only a MS1), but wouldn't your home medschool essentially guarantee you a spot in IM/FM to prevent you from not matching? I imagine having people not match looks rather bad, so unless your criminal wouldn't your medschool want you to have a spot?

Uh, no. Those programs fill up with people through the match, because it looks bad on them if they don't fill, so why would they try to leave a few open spots for the scramblers at the med school?

I was actually wondering something about this... would you have followed the advice you're giving now if you were not as stellar an applicant as you are? Let's say you got a 230 on step 1 and maybe some rads research would you still be applying for rads or would you have chosen something you're more competitive for. Obviously you could still have matched somewhere in radiology but clearly would get better programs in other fields.

I know it's hard to speak to hypothetical questions but I think the point is that it's easy for some posters to sit here and say apply for something you're more competitive for even though that may be someone's second choice while that poster is competitive for everything.

Really? You guys assume way too much about the match. There are a lot of moving parts, and assuming that you'll just land a spot in any given specialty because you're qualified is not a given.

 

[45408]

so what i've gleaned from this thread...step 1 test day will be the most important day of my educational career. yet whenever a premed says they are considering a school based on their step results (baylor comes come to mind), med students swoop in and say that is an awful way of choosing a school. this seems contradictory, what am i missing?

You only get a good step 1 score if YOU get a good step 1 score. Your school's average doesn't mean much if you score well below the average. I'm pretty convinced that you (the collective you) are the primary limiting factor in how well you do on step 1, not your school.

 

[Butler]

You only get a good step 1 score if YOU get a good step 1 score. Your school's average doesn't mean much if you score well below the average. I'm pretty convinced that you (the collective you) are the primary limiting factor in how well you do on step 1, not your school.

This. You do well on the Step if you are a good test taker and/or you prepare well. In my opinion, your school choice plays little role in how students do. We all have access to the same books, review sources and question banks.

What top 25 has mandatory 8-5 lectures? To that end, what school period has mandatory 8-5 lectures. My school had "mandatory" lectures at times, didn't stop me from skipping.

Also, to my knowledge, University of Florida has 8-5 lectures, 4-5 days a week. They're not mandatory, but I don't believe they are recorded. Not Top 25, but top 50 I believe. Anecdotal evidence stinks as we all know, but in this case its just to prove that such schools do exist. As a side note, UF apparently does well on Step 1, but again we all know self-reported scores can be totally bogus so take all those with a grain of salt.

 

[dienekes88]

I wish I would have known how to work the research machine better.

Publish publish publish.

 

[dr zaius]

Also, to my knowledge, University of Florida has 8-5 lectures, 4-5 days a week. They're not mandatory, but I don't believe they are recorded. Not Top 25, but top 50 I believe. Anecdotal evidence stinks as we all know, but in this case its just to prove that such schools do exist. As a side note, UF apparently does well on Step 1, but again we all know self-reported scores can be totally bogus so take all those with a grain of salt.

Second year at UF typically has 2-3 lectures in the morning, a pathology lab, lunch break, and maybe 2 lectures in the afternoon or small group of some sort. The afternoon lectures are typically the current less stressful class (ethics, etc). They began recording as of last year. A fair amount of students still go to class, though. We're typically finished around 3pm most days. If it's your day of the week for the patient care class you might be there until 5pm seeing a patient.

We have about 5+ weeks from the end of MS2 classes until the start of rotations to take step I. Most people take 4 weeks to do nothing but study before taking step I. I think this really helps our scores. The director of our pathology course is like our very own non-annoying Goljan with much nerdier (read: funnier) jokes. His test questions were on average more difficult than the path shelf questions, so I think he is also a big part of the equation. We're the first class to have 2 years of P/F curriculum, so hopefully our step I average will be the same as previous years' .

 

[CarlATHF]

Second year at UF typically has 2-3 lectures in the morning, a pathology lab, lunch break, and maybe 2 lectures in the afternoon or small group of some sort. The afternoon lectures are typically the current less stressful class (ethics, etc). They began recording as of last year. A fair amount of students still go to class, though. We're typically finished around 3pm most days. If it's your day of the week for the patient care class you might be there until 5pm seeing a patient.

We have about 5+ weeks from the end of MS2 classes until the start of rotations to take step I. Most people take 4 weeks to do nothing but study before taking step I. I think this really helps our scores. The director of our pathology course is like our very own non-annoying Goljan with much nerdier (read: funnier) jokes. His test questions were on average more difficult than the path shelf questions, so I think he is also a big part of the equation. We're the first class to have 2 years of P/F curriculum, so hopefully our step I average will be the same as previous years' .

Whatever bro, speak for yourself, I've had 100+ weeks of dedicated Step time since the Summer before med school began.

But seriously, thanks for the advice MS4s, it's much appreciated!

 

[Asp]

I wish I would have known how to work the research machine better.

Publish publish publish.

Agreed. Though I think it's not just about what you publish, but who you publish with. If you manage to impress someone who is important (anywhere from someone who sits on your school's own admissions committee, to someone who has published hundreds of seminal papers and has a national reputation), that goes a long, long way. A long enough way that it can make up for subpar Step scores or average third year grades.

I think a mistake a lot of medical students make is working with someone too junior. If you are going to spend the effort and time it takes to put out real research, do it for someone who counts for something in the academic world, and is willing to go to bat for you.

Depending on your institution and individual circumstances, this may be easier said than done, admittedly.

 

[Laplace]

After reading through this thread, it seems that step 1, AOA and research are the most important things in terms of what is within an individual's control. The question Ihave now pertains to research.

At this point in time, I'd either pick an IM subspecialty or orthopaedic surgery. I understand specialties like ortho want specialty-specific research, but I'm worried if I spend my summers on ortho-specific research, that it will put me at a disadvantage trying to land a top 10 residency. With this in mind, what kind of research would benefit my application both ways? Would doing basic science ortho-related research (ie stem cell-based cartilage regeneration/tissue engineering) be equally appealing to IM programs?

 

[Sheldor]

After reading through this thread, it seems that step 1, AOA and research are the most important things in terms of what is within an individual's control. The question Ihave now pertains to research.

At this point in time, I'd either pick an IM subspecialty or orthopaedic surgery. I understand specialties like ortho want specialty-specific research, but I'm worried if I spend my summers on ortho-specific research, that it will put me at a disadvantage trying to land a top 10 residency. With this in mind, what kind of research would benefit my application both ways? Would doing basic science ortho-related research (ie stem cell-based cartilage regeneration/tissue engineering) be equally appealing to IM programs?

Do research where the two fields overlap, that way you cover your bases. For example: Comparing treatment regimens for osteomyelitis, and comparing to surgical debridement as a control. Not the best example, but just think of any case that medicine typically consults Ortho for and you should be able to find something.

 

[Phyozo]

After reading through this thread, it seems that step 1, AOA and research are the most important things in terms of what is within an individual's control. The question Ihave now pertains to research.

At this point in time, I'd either pick an IM subspecialty or orthopaedic surgery. I understand specialties like ortho want specialty-specific research, but I'm worried if I spend my summers on ortho-specific research, that it will put me at a disadvantage trying to land a top 10 residency. With this in mind, what kind of research would benefit my application both ways? Would doing basic science ortho-related research (ie stem cell-based cartilage regeneration/tissue engineering) be equally appealing to IM programs?

The important thing is not what research you do, it's what you produce. You're better off showing 2 first author pubs in an unrelated field than slaving away in a basic science lab looking at stem-cell regen with nothing to show for your work. Orthopods want ortho research because it's so competitive. IM research helps in the upper tier programs but IM in general is much less picky about the type of research. I did unreleated research and ended up applying IM and got plenty of top tier interviews. I'd recommend you do ortho-specific research that's productive (try to get at least a few abstracts/case studies published, go to some conferences, etc). If you end up wanting to do IM, they'll be happy to take you as long as you can explain the reason for the switch.

 

[forsparta]

I have a question now regarding other graduate degrees and matching. I am currently planning on getting an MPH alongside my MD in four years (most classes in year 1 so won't affect step one) at a P/F school that is top 30.

From what I gleamed, STEP 1>>Clinical Grades>Research>=Step 2 (in many cases)

Where would an MPH come into this, if anywhere? Matching into a competitive field, you want to stand out any way you can (note, I am not doing an MPH to stand out). Thoughts?

 

[The kitchen sink]

It's just an example. You get my point, though - don't aim low, because goals can (and probably will) change.

Pretty much sums it up

 

[gutonc]

I have a question now regarding other graduate degrees and matching. I am currently planning on getting an MPH alongside my MD in four years (most classes in year 1 so won't affect step one) at a P/F school that is top 30.

From what I gleamed, STEP 1>>Clinical Grades>Research>=Step 2 (in many cases)

Where would an MPH come into this, if anywhere? Matching into a competitive field, you want to stand out any way you can (note, I am not doing an MPH to stand out). Thoughts?

From what I gleamed, STEP 1>>Clinical Grades>Research>=Step 2 (in many cases)>>>>>>>>>>MPH or other made up degree.

 

[Bojack Horseman]

Isn't every degree "made up" ?

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

I wish I would have took the 1st two years more seriously. It is hard to do well on step if you only have 4 weeks to study. Now because of an average score I really have to take step 2 and blow it out of the water. I'm also not even applying to the super competitive residencies.

 

[forsparta]

Hey,

A P.I. just offered me a spot in his lab to write a review paper on a specific gene. I would be a first author (since I am writing it) on this paper and it would be published in a journal that is reputable (not a top journal, but not a bottom feeder as well).

Will this improve my chances for residency app? Is this a good start for my research career or is this enough for frields like IM?

Thanks

 

[username456789]

I wish I would have took the 1st two years more seriously. It is hard to do well on step if you only have 4 weeks to study. Now because of an average score I really have to take step 2 and blow it out of the water. I'm also not even applying to the super competitive residencies.

I'm sorry you had to find this out the hard way, but I do not understand why it is such a common problem. So many people subscribe to the "hey, grades don't matter for the first two years so why bother working so hard" philosophy, yet my intense M1/M2 studying was what prepared me most to knock Step I out of the park. It also made the 4 or 5 weeks of Step I studying an actual review, not a desperate attempt to learn or completely re-learn copious amounts of information.

Shooting for the stars during M1/M2 pays in dividends.

 

[235009]

Hey,

A P.I. just offered me a spot in his lab to write a review paper on a specific gene. I would be a first author (since I am writing it) on this paper and it would be published in a journal that is reputable (not a top journal, but not a bottom feeder as well).

Will this improve my chances for residency app? Is this a good start for my research career or is this enough for frields like IM?

Thanks

from what i understand a review article isn't viewed as highly as an original research publication but it's better than having no publication at all. as for jumpstarting ur research career this isn't exactly the best way to do it. a better way would be to get involved in an experiment/study/analysis that could lead to a publication. writing a review article isn't the same as doing research and once you're done you'll be back at square one since you haven't actually done any research.

 

[MilkmanAl]

Shooting for the stars during M1/M2 pays in dividends.

That depends pretty heavily on how much mind-numbing trivia your school likes to test over. I can think of several blocks for which studying incessantly in order to do well on the school test would've had very little impact on my Step-useful knowledge (which is obviously unrelated to UAMS nuking its entire curriculum on the fly this past year ). It definitely helps to make sure you've got all the main points and commonly-tested details down cold during the first two years, however. Hopefully knowing those things will lead to you doing well in class, but that isn't always going to be the case.

 

[JackShephard MD]

That depends pretty heavily on how much mind-numbing trivia your school likes to test over. I can think of several blocks for which studying incessantly in order to do well on the school test would've had very little impact on my Step-useful knowledge (which is obviously unrelated to UAMS nuking its entire curriculum on the fly this past year ). It definitely helps to make sure you've got all the main points and commonly-tested details down cold during the first two years, however. Hopefully knowing those things will lead to you doing well in class, but that isn't always going to be the case.

Agreed 100%. I think people generalize too much. We have lots of minutia on exams too.

 

[mimelim]

That depends pretty heavily on how much mind-numbing trivia your school likes to test over. I can think of several blocks for which studying incessantly in order to do well on the school test would've had very little impact on my Step-useful knowledge (which is obviously unrelated to UAMS nuking its entire curriculum on the fly this past year ). It definitely helps to make sure you've got all the main points and commonly-tested details down cold during the first two years, however. Hopefully knowing those things will lead to you doing well in class, but that isn't always going to be the case.

I didn't get the top Step 1 score in my class, but did respectably. I also spent a considerably LOW amount of time studying for class in MS1/2 and have long wondered if I should have spent more time on it. I matched Vascular Surgery at the top of my list so NOW I know that it didn't hurt me, but it bugged me for the longest time.

I was chatting with several people from my class who all scored 265+ on Step 1 and 3 out of 3 said that they wish they had spent less time learning minutia that didn't matter and enjoyed MS1/2 more. Not from a goofing off perspective, but expanding horizons, experiencing medicine, getting to better know their classmates, etc. No question doing well your first two years helps with step 1, but killing yourself over details that basic science professors want you to know is counter productive.