Official 2013 Step 1 Experiences and Scores Thread

[Phloston]

I figure now is a good time to jump-start this thread.

Even though some of us who had taken the exam in late-2012 are still awaiting our scores (amid the holiday delays) and could technically still post within last year's thread, it is after all mid-January now, so it's probably apposite that we move forward and hope for a great year.

Cheers to 2013

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Phloston]

I agree with all of this except for the MCAT comparisons. You have to remember that a bunch of people who take the MCAT never take Step 1. A 250 is probably more like a 36, whereas a 260 is more like a 40 in terms of raw performance. A 270 is probably similar to a 44.

Percentile-wise, the MCAT comparisons for 250 and 260 are likely ~33 and ~38, respectively.

However, in terms of difficulty actually achieving the scores themselves, you're probably right that a 250 and 260 are closer to 36 and 40 simply based on the med, vs premed, population comprising better test-takers overall.

When I had first started prepping, I was naive/stupid enough to think a 270+ wasn't that much of a reach insofar as you put in the time/effort. Percentile-wise, a 270 is probably the 40-barrier, but in terms of difficulty, yeah, it's definitely a 43 or 44.

 

[Bedlam]

I had a 32 and 261. Go figure.

 

[stronghold]

January ends with Phloston's as highest score

 

[Phloston]

You'd be surprised. This is SDN. There are some Aspergic people who are humble like Gandhi around here.

 

[IN51]

i am an img from india and new to this forum,but i think this as well as other similar forums did help me.So i thought i will also contribute a little.Here's my stats:

UWSA1 :261(1.5 mnth back)
UWSA2: 265(10 days back)
UW Qbank;82%
usmle free qstns; 95% correct
Exam date:12/12/12
Score:276/92 (Thank God)

 

[Phloston]

So jealous.

And as I literally just said in my above post, some people are silent like Gandhi around here. I think the fact that you're Indian also fits the scenario nicely.

Congrats, dude.

 

[Jonari]

So jealous.

And as I literally just said in my above post, some people are silent like Gandhi around here. I think the fact that you're Indian also fits the scenario nicely.

Congrats, dude.

No reason to be jealous. I can make up a new screen name, and throw in some numbers. Not saying, that the poster above didn't get the score he did, but just take everything with a grain of salt.

 

[Pruthvi]

276?? awesome !! mindblowing performance !! congratulations on this achievement

can u please elaborate ur study plan, books u used , when did u start , etc..? it wud be of help to all of us !

BTW, am from India too

 

[Zzmed]

i am an img from india and new to this forum,but i think this as well as other similar forums did help me.So i thought i will also contribute a little.Here's my stats:

UWSA1 :261(1.5 mnth back)
UWSA2: 265(10 days back)
UW Qbank;82%
usmle free qstns; 95% correct
Exam date:12/12/12
Score:276/92 (Thank God)

Congrats for the score! Could you plz elaborate on your study schedule?

Phloston! C'mon man give us a break!
Besides, correct me if i am wrong, your nbme scores were on the same level... Don't forget the whole steep curve thing you were constantly saying!

 

[Phloston]

Well just based on statistics, a few people have to score that high every year. As far as I can recall though, not a single person had posted on the 2012 scores thread with a score as high as 276. The only other 276 I know of was Pollux back in 2008. Last year on the scores thread, there was a 274 and a "275+," but who knows what that 275+ actually was.

For a 276, you're probably talking no more than ~5-7 wrong on the whole exam.

The reason I guess that is because there's a girl who had scored 274 however many years ago (I think her username is PrincessPeach), and on one of her NBMEs that she had scored 270+, she mentioned having had only 3 wrong. So 3/200 --> 4.5/300 --> ~5/322.

So I'd guess this guy's 276 was ~5 wrong on the whole form. That's quite impressive.

 

[WashMe]

Well just based on statistics, a few people have to score that high every year. As far as I can recall though, not a single person had posted on the 2012 scores thread with a score as high as 276. The only other 276 I know of was Pollux back in 2008. Last year on the scores thread, there was a 274 and a "275+," but who knows what that 275+ actually was.

For a 276, you're probably talking no more than ~5-7 wrong on the whole exam.

The reason I guess that is because there's a girl who had scored 274 however many years ago (I think her username is PrincessPeach), and on one of her NBMEs that she had scored 270+, she mentioned having had only 3 wrong. So 3/200 --> 4.5/300 --> ~5/322.

So I'd guess this guy's 276 was ~5 wrong on the whole form. That's quite impressive.

sigh... not true

I don't know why this always gets perpetuated on SDN. The test is not curved to make it where a certain score "has" to appear. If everyone in the world who took Step 1 in 2012 got only ~5 questions wrong, they would ALL get a 276. Similarly, if everyone missed 20+ questions, then NOBODY would score 270+. The curve is set ahead of time. The fact that the results roughly resemble a bell curve is based on differences in human ability and preparation, not statistical manipulation after the fact.

 

[Guyton Killah]

i am an img from india and new to this forum,but i think this as well as other similar forums did help me.So i thought i will also contribute a little.Here's my stats:

UWSA1 :261(1.5 mnth back)
UWSA2: 265(10 days back)
UW Qbank;82%
usmle free qstns; 95% correct
Exam date:12/12/12
Score:276/92 (Thank God)

Wow. Congrats. And can you please share with us your study schedule? And, how come that you have only 1 post

 

[Old Style Nanny]

sigh... not true

I don't know why this always gets perpetuated on SDN. The test is not curved to make it where a certain score "has" to appear. If everyone in the world who took Step 1 in 2012 got only ~5 questions wrong, they would ALL get a 276. Similarly, if everyone missed 20+ questions, then NOBODY would score 270+. The curve is set ahead of time. The fact that the results roughly resemble a bell curve is based on differences in human ability and preparation, not statistical manipulation after the fact.

That makes no sense at all. What are you trying to say exactly?

You do realize that if there were people who scored 270+ last year (and there are), then there have to be people who score 270+ this year right? That is just the way statistics works.

So, unless you have evidence of a new virus, for example, that is found to affect only the most intelligent medical students only this year that kills them all shifting the curve, yes, there have to be people who score 270+ this year.

 

[thecalccobra]

i am an img from india and new to this forum,but i think this as well as other similar forums did help me.So i thought i will also contribute a little.Here's my stats:

UWSA1 :261(1.5 mnth back)
UWSA2: 265(10 days back)
UW Qbank;82%
usmle free qstns; 95% correct
Exam date:12/12/12
Score:276/92 (Thank God)

First post here. I call bs on the 276.

 

[IN51]

Congrats for the score! Could you plz elaborate on your study schedule?

study plan was pretty simple..i started with going thru the review bks- BRS for physio and behav science, katzung for pharma, goljan for path, rest kaplan..i was pretty slow initially ..so it took abt 4-5 months for me to finish all these(i had classes also)..
then i did uworld for one month..i think that was very important...i used to spend about 45 min per block, but almost the double time for reading explanations..
Needless to say first aid is the only book i think we will be able remember at time of exam.I went thru it about 3 times and it will be a good idea to note the points in it..

 

[IN51]

Well just based on statistics, a few people have to score that high every year. As far as I can recall though, not a single person had posted on the 2012 scores thread with a score as high as 276. The only other 276 I know of was Pollux back in 2008. Last year on the scores thread, there was a 274 and a "275+," but who knows what that 275+ actually was.

For a 276, you're probably talking no more than ~5-7 wrong on the whole exam.

The reason I guess that is because there's a girl who had scored 274 however many years ago (I think her username is PrincessPeach), and on one of her NBMEs that she had scored 270+, she mentioned having had only 3 wrong. So 3/200 --> 4.5/300 --> ~5/322.

So I'd guess this guy's 276 was ~5 wrong on the whole form. That's quite impressive.

i dont really know how much i got wrong...but after walking out from the exam hall i thought atleast 2-3 were wrong per block...esp the first block was pretty tough..there were 5-6 surprises and i could barely finish the block in time(abt 20 sec to go)..
i feel like i would have got atleast 10-15 wrong for the entire exam..(more than 5 almost sure)

 

[withrye]

That makes no sense at all. What are you trying to say exactly?

You do realize that if there were people who scored 270+ last year (and there are), then there have to be people who score 270+ this year right? That is just the way statistics works.

So, unless you have evidence of a new virus, for example, that is found to affect only the most intelligent medical students only this year that kills them all shifting the curve, yes, there have to be people who score 270+ this year.

I don't think the poster you quoted is trying to claim that no 270+ scores will happen each and every year. Instead, I think that poster was claiming that it isn't a given based on how scores are calculated.

Let's entertain the idea that getting 1 wrong gives you a 290, and that that's the only way to get a 290 (i.e. the scores aren't set to a curve after the fact). This does not guarantee that every year there will be a 290. In this way, it is statistically likely that a score above 270 happens every year (because there are so many test takers), but it is not statistically guaranteed that a 290 happens each year.

If you accept the premise of the above, all we're left with is haggling over the score at which the percent probability times the number of yearly test takers dips below 1.

 

[Old Style Nanny]

I don't think the poster you quoted is trying to claim that no 270+ scores will happen each and every year. Instead, I think that poster was claiming that it isn't a given based on how scores are calculated.

Let's entertain the idea that getting 1 wrong gives you a 290, and that that's the only way to get a 290 (i.e. the scores aren't set to a curve after the fact). This does not guarantee that every year there will be a 290. In this way, it is statistically likely that a score above 270 happens every year (because there are so many test takers), but it is not statistically guaranteed that a 290 happens each year.

If you accept the premise of the above, all we're left with is haggling over the score at which the percent probability times the number of yearly test takers dips below 1.

Well, if there was 1 person who scored 290+ last year, I would argue there is a good chance that more than 1 person would score 290+ this year (considering Flynn Effect, and assuming IQ has at least something to do with the scores of this test). The number of questions one needs to get right to get such and such a score has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Anyway, the previous poster I quoted had replied to this text of Phloston as evidenced by the bold accent in the quote: "Well just based on statistics, a few people have to score that high every year."

So, the reply made no sense, and provided no solid argument to contradict that statement.

 

[withrye]

Well, if there was 1 person who scored 290+ last year, I would argue there is a good chance that more than 1 person would score 290+ this year (considering Flynn Effect, and assuming IQ has at least something to do with the scores of this test). The number of questions one needs to get right to get such and such a score has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Anyway, the previous poster I quoted had replied to this text of Phloston as evidenced by the bold accent in the quote: "Well just based on statistics, a few people have to score that high every year."

So, the reply made no sense, and provided no solid argument to contradict that statement.

I agree with the second half of your post, but I disagree that if something rare happens one year, there's a good chance it will happen again this year. If the odds of getting a 290 are 1:100,000 and only 10,000 people take the test each year, statistically you're only getting a 290 once every 10 years.* Seen this way, it would be a mistake to assume that the one year it does happen is further proof that there's a good chance it will happen again the very next year. It is strong evidence, however, that it will happen again eventually. I'm not arguing that scores like 275 don't happen once every year. I just don't think a 280 happens every year, or that a 290+ has ever happened.

EDIT: Re: the Flynn effect, it's somewhere around 3 points gained per decade, and it's seems to have been slowing to around 1-2 points per decade (and might even be reversing!). I don't think it presents as a main driving force to rising scores. (In my opinion, scores are rising because of increasing competition based on this one number combined with an increasing number and refinement of resources each year).

*These numbers are, of course, purely for illustration.

 

[Old Style Nanny]

I agree with the second half of your post, but I disagree that if something rare happens one year, there's a good chance it will happen again this year. If the odds of getting a 290 are 1:100,000 and only 10,000 people take the test each year, statistically you're only getting a 290 once every 10 years.* Seen this way, it would be a mistake to assume that the one year it does happen is further proof that there's a good chance it will happen again the very next year. It is strong evidence, however, that it will happen again eventually. I'm not arguing that scores like 275 don't happen once every year. I just don't think a 280 happens every year, or that a 290+ has ever happened.

EDIT: Re: the Flynn effect, it's somewhere around 3 points gained per decade, and it's seems to have been slowing to around 1-2 points per decade (and might even be reversing!). I don't think it presents as a main driving force to rising scores. (In my opinion, scores are rising because of increasing competition based on this one number combined with an increasing number and refinement of resources each year).

*These numbers are, of course, purely for illustration.

Flynn effect is certainly not reversing! WAIS-IV was released only a few years back and the IQ scales were adjusted by ~3 points! That's quite significant. Anyway, we're digressing.

Yes, you are correct if the odds are that high. However, we don't actually know how high they are. Does NBME publish results beyond 280? I am under the impression 270+ is the last column they publish. Correct me if I am wrong.

So, without the actual numbers, and without even knowing what percentile a score of 290+ is, I would only assume good faith and consider it is going to be possible again if it was possible before. 270+, similarly, is certainly possible considering we know >1 person gets it every year based on NBME's published data, and hence would certainly happen this year as well.

The curve set would make sure this happens as it is supposed to reflect equivalent scoring no matter which year one had taken the exam in (this curve I believe is based on the overall difficulty of the entire question set assessed and set once every year).

 

[withrye]

Flynn effect is certainly not reversing! WAIS-IV was released only a few years back and the IQ scales were adjusted by ~3 points! That's quite significant. Anyway, we're digressing.

Yes, you are correct if the odds are that high. However, we don't actually know how high they are. Does NBME publish results beyond 280? I am under the impression 270+ is the last column they publish. Correct me if I am wrong.

So, without the actual numbers, and without even knowing what percentile a score of 290+ is, I would only assume good faith and consider it is going to be possible again if it was possible before. 270+, similarly, is certainly possible considering we know >1 person gets it every year based on NBME's published data, and hence would certainly happen this year as well.

The curve set would make sure this happens as it is supposed to reflect equivalent scoring no matter which year one had taken the exam in (this curve I believe is based on the overall difficulty of the entire question set assessed and set once every year).

I have to admit that I don't know a lot about the Flynn effect, and that I based my assessment on this paper from 2009 by Flynn himself.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X09000057

Abstract:

The Raven's data show that over the 65 years from circa 1942 to the present, taking ages 5–15 together, British school children have gained 14 IQ points for a rate of 0.216 points per year. However, since 1979, gains have declined with age and between the ages of 12–13 and 14–15, small gains turn into small losses. This is confirmed by Piagetian data and poses the possibility that the cognitive demands of teen-age subculture have been stagnant over perhaps the last 30 years.

 

[Old Style Nanny]

I have to admit that I don't know a lot about the Flynn effect, and that I based my assessment on this paper from 2009 by Flynn himself.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X09000057

Unfortunately, I am not able to access the article. Anyway, this is from Wechsler:

Q: I retested a gifted examinee using the WAIS–IV and the scores were lower than previously reported on the WAIS–III. Why is this?
A: In addition to the difference in the core subtests on WAIS–III and WAIS–IV, the norms for the newer test are slightly harder due to the Flynn effect.

WAIS-III was released in 1997, WAIS-IV in 2009.

 

[Old Style Nanny]

Abstract:

Oh now I remember that study. It was one where Flynn famously jumped to the conclusion that computer games and the teen-culture were dumbing down kids in UK. The one where he famously didn't account for immigrants from countries with lower average IQs who had flocked to the UK in that same 30-year period and who were very much a part of his study.

Flynn had also been wrong about his conclusions from the observed data more than once. He first observed the effect, but that doesn't mean he owns all copyright for that effect. I would rather take the word of Wechsler's team who would have tested thousands of examinees with a highly standardized test in America which norming the new test.

The effect may be reaching a plateau, but I hadn't found enough evidence to conclude that it is on the decline.

 

[projectlogic]

i am an img from india and new to this forum,but i think this as well as other similar forums did help me.So i thought i will also contribute a little.Here's my stats:

UWSA1 :261(1.5 mnth back)
UWSA2: 265(10 days back)
UW Qbank;82%
usmle free qstns; 95% correct
Exam date:12/12/12
Score:276/92 (Thank God)

Post a screenshot of your results.

 

[JShephard]

Congratulate him on doing well.

It could be real or not. What does it matter if a stranger on the internet has a high score or not?

Great job IN51. Sounds like you worked hard and got great results. Good luck.

 

[WashMe]

That makes no sense at all. What are you trying to say exactly?

You do realize that if there were people who scored 270+ last year (and there are), then there have to be people who score 270+ this year right? That is just the way statistics works.

So, unless you have evidence of a new virus, for example, that is found to affect only the most intelligent medical students only this year that kills them all shifting the curve, yes, there have to be people who score 270+ this year.

don't embarrass yourself

It is completely untrue that there HAVE to be people scoring that high. It is LIKELY that it will happen (because, like you said, medical students are probably not getting dumber), but it is not guaranteed at all because the scores are not forced into a bell curve. It is entirely possible that the highest score COULD be a 250 in a given year (although this is unlikely), and it's also entirely possible that the lowest score COULD be a 250 in a given year (also unlikely). The NBME does not define the curve for Step 1 after the fact; Step 1 only appears to have the rough appearance of a Gaussian distribution because of US, not THEM.

I don't think the poster you quoted is trying to claim that no 270+ scores will happen each and every year. Instead, I think that poster was claiming that it isn't a given based on how scores are calculated.

Let's entertain the idea that getting 1 wrong gives you a 290, and that that's the only way to get a 290 (i.e. the scores aren't set to a curve after the fact). This does not guarantee that every year there will be a 290. In this way, it is statistically likely that a score above 270 happens every year (because there are so many test takers), but it is not statistically guaranteed that a 290 happens each year.

If you accept the premise of the above, all we're left with is haggling over the score at which the percent probability times the number of yearly test takers dips below 1.

Well, if there was 1 person who scored 290+ last year, I would argue there is a good chance that more than 1 person would score 290+ this year (considering Flynn Effect, and assuming IQ has at least something to do with the scores of this test). The number of questions one needs to get right to get such and such a score has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Anyway, the previous poster I quoted had replied to this text of Phloston as evidenced by the bold accent in the quote: "Well just based on statistics, a few people have to score that high every year."

So, the reply made no sense, and provided no solid argument to contradict that statement.

My reply DID make sense. Nobody "HAS" to score that high. The fact that someone probably will does not mean that it HAD to happen.

 

[Phloston]

sigh... not true

I don't know why this always gets perpetuated on SDN. The test is not curved to make it where a certain score "has" to appear. If everyone in the world who took Step 1 in 2012 got only ~5 questions wrong, they would ALL get a 276. Similarly, if everyone missed 20+ questions, then NOBODY would score 270+. The curve is set ahead of time. The fact that the results roughly resemble a bell curve is based on differences in human ability and preparation, not statistical manipulation after the fact.

I understand what you're getting at. I'm not saying that the NBME must necessarily allot a particular high score to X-number of people per year just based on the curve. What I'm implying is more along the lines of: "the best predictor of this year's financial state is the previous year's financial state." I agree on your point that 280+ probably doesn't happen every year, but a small number of mid-270s definitely do.

i dont really know how much i got wrong...but after walking out from the exam hall i thought atleast 2-3 were wrong per block...esp the first block was pretty tough..there were 5-6 surprises and i could barely finish the block in time(abt 20 sec to go)..
i feel like i would have got atleast 10-15 wrong for the entire exam..(more than 5 almost sure)

If you had marked 2-3 questions per block, then you ended up getting most of them right. In order to get a 276, you literally have to get next to nothing wrong on that exam.

2-3 wrong per block is likely closer to a low-260s score. The two 264s and one 266 I had had on my NBMEs, with extended feedback, were 9 and 8 wrong, respectively, out of 200.

So for a 266, we're talking 8/200 --> 12/300 --> ~13/322 = ~2 wrong per block.

I only got a 262 on the Step1 and am fairly sure I got somewhere between 15-20 questions wrong on the exam, but probably closer to 18-20.

Does NBME publish results beyond 280? I am under the impression 270+ is the last column they publish. Correct me if I am wrong.

The last column they publish is >260. So this is not 260+. It's 261+ (see first image; these are plastics stats, but the score columns are arranged identically for all specialties).

The highest theoretical score also is not a 300. It's 292. If you literally get 100% on the USMLE, you'll get a 292 (see second image).

Btw, with the second image, it's not accurate to say that every question you get wrong moves you down one row on the table. In actuality, some of those higher scores aren't even possible on the NBMEs. My guess would be that the highest scores on that table are more accurate, per incorrect question, with regard to the real USMLE (e.g. notice a 276 would be ~6-7 wrong), but on the NBMEs, 3 wrong is low-mid-270s.

 

[Old Style Nanny]

The NBME does not define the curve for Step 1 after the fact; Step 1 only appears to have the rough appearance of a Gaussian distribution because of US, not THEM.

Nobody said otherwise. Not even Phloston on the post you originally quoted. Anyway, I apologize. I assumed the problem was reading; turns out it is comprehension.

(because, like you said, medical students are probably not getting dumber)

Maybe I spoke in haste. I now seem to have some evidence to the contrary.

 

[g8orlife]

i am an img from india and new to this forum,but i think this as well as other similar forums did help me.So i thought i will also contribute a little.Here's my stats:

UWSA1 :261(1.5 mnth back)
UWSA2: 265(10 days back)
UW Qbank;82%
usmle free qstns; 95% correct
Exam date:12/12/12
Score:276/92 (Thank God)

I'm siding with the "not believing it" goup.

 

[Trogghunter]

I'm siding with the "not believing it" goup.

Idk, he says that he's from india...they live and breathe that exam for a year. To get below 250 as an IMG from india is an epic fail, and on top of that it's becoming more difficult to get visas now from residencies. My parents and their friends had to take USMLE after moving to the US (decades ago-european) and got ~240s despite that they didnt speak english all that well, like these guys....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCRuqpcIIhY

 

[stronghold]

^^^^
This is not true! Indians get low scores and high scores. I have met many Indians whith low or normal scores. Nothing unusual. No offense, but if you want to judge on ethnicity intellegence then consider the whole population, not just few hundreds out of 1 billion!
I am also siding with the "not believing" group. Your first post in forums with 276 score smells feshy

 

[jerryliucq]

Hi, Phloston，I appreciate your contribution for this forum. As I know, you can have a simple method to calculate your real USMLE score.

The top score is 280. One wrong question costs your 1.2 points. When you get 262, you roughly have (280-262)/1.2 =15 questions wrong. Pollux got 276 in 2008, I thought he only got 3 questions wrong.

I don't believe the 292 score in the chart, it is an ideal chart for aliens from Mars. The real world is 280 world.

 

[jerryliucq]

In my method, convert your NBME score to USMLE score is simple: Mutiple your nbme correct question numbers with 1.4, it is USMLE score. For example, if you got 192 questions correct in the NBME form, your score for NBME is 192*1.4=269. If you want a 250 in the USMLE, you should have 250/1.4=179 questions correct at least.

From above , we can convert the IN51' score. He said his NBME only has 95% correct. It converts to 190*1.4=266. I don't think he can improve his score to 276 in the real exam. In my opinion, it is not true.

 

[niceitup]

(deleted)

 

[startswithb]

June 19th!

 

[Phloston]

Hi, Phloston，I appreciate your contribution for this forum. As I know, you can have a simple method to calculate your real USMLE score.

The top score is 280. One wrong question costs your 1.2 points. When you get 262, you roughly have (280-262)/1.2 =15 questions wrong. Pollux got 276 in 2008, I thought he only got 3 questions wrong.

I don't believe the 292 score in the chart, it is an ideal chart for aliens from Mars. The real world is 280 world.

In my method, convert your NBME score to USMLE score is simple: Mutiple your nbme correct question numbers with 1.4, it is USMLE score. For example, if you got 192 questions correct in the NBME form, your score for NBME is 192*1.4=269. If you want a 250 in the USMLE, you should have 250/1.4=179 questions correct at least.

From above , we can convert the IN51' score. He said his NBME only has 95% correct. It converts to 190*1.4=266. I don't think he can improve his score to 276 in the real exam. In my opinion, it is not true.

At the end of the day, nobody on this forum is 100% sure how the real deal is calculated. It's always only speculative.

American IMG test taken mid Jan.

I have a background in clinical path, mainly micro

UWSA 1: 214 (4 weeks out)
UWSA 2: 228 (1 week out)

Step 1: 230

I finished my second year at the end of Sept. I can't say enough good things about Dr. Goljan and Dr. Sattar. They're the best.

- Kaplan q bank (June-Sept), USMLErx in October, then Uworld
- USMLE Step 1 secrets: on Phloston's unessential list but I benefited greatly

I intend on applying for internal and family med.

My experience: the test started just like Uworld, then after 1.5 blocks I was taken into the deep end. I spent the next 4 blocks in the fog of war only to find relief in the last 1.5 blocks. I have been dwelling on 15-20 questions for the past three weeks and they have been eating my soul. This morning before I clicked on my score report I was sure that I had failed.

Have courage and stay calm- with your own appropriate level of nervousness. You can do it.

Thanks to all for being so helpful. I have gained invaluable lessons just through lurking this forum.

Thanks for your post and congrats on being done with all of the stressful nonsense.

I agree with you that SECRETS is a phenomenal book, but because it's so affable, my viewpoint is that that's ironically baneful when you're approaching the real deal and need to prioritize elsewhere.

But for the sake of other people on this forum, what did you like most about SECRETS?

 

[withrye]

but because it's so affable, my viewpoint is that that's ironically baneful when you're approaching the real deal

I don't think I understand what you mean by this. I'm not familiar with this book.

 

[Phloston]

I don't think I understand what you mean by this. I'm not familiar with this book.

SECRETS is a really good book, and it's fun to read, but that's a bad thing when you near the exam and should be focusing on FA and practice questions.

There was a girl from my school who took the Step1 the same time as I had, and during the final three months, she was spending more time on SECRETS than she was on FA + practice questions. Once again, everyone has his or her own unique study methods, but I kept thinking that focusing on SECRETS that late in the game was actually doing more harm than good.

 

[RadicalRadon]

Hi, Phloston，I appreciate your contribution for this forum. As I know, you can have a simple method to calculate your real USMLE score.

The top score is 280. One wrong question costs your 1.2 points. When you get 262, you roughly have (280-262)/1.2 =15 questions wrong. Pollux got 276 in 2008, I thought he only got 3 questions wrong.

I don't believe the 292 score in the chart, it is an ideal chart for aliens from Mars. The real world is 280 world.

You guys are so off. I know multiple people personally with scores above 270. One scored 283 and is a senior radonc resident at UChicago.

Worry about other stuff. Your step score only matters so much after a point. Someone getting a 265 didn't miss out on that harvard spot because their board score was too low.

 

[jerryliucq]

283! Thank you for your information. I apologize for my innocence.

You guys are so off. I know multiple people personally with scores above 270. One scored 283 and is a senior radonc resident at UChicago.

Worry about other stuff. Your step score only matters so much after a point. Someone getting a 265 didn't miss out on that harvard spot because their board score was too low.

 

[niceitup]

... my viewpoint is that that's ironically baneful when you're approaching the real deal and need to prioritize elsewhere.

But for the sake of other people on this forum, what did you like most about SECRETS?

I read SECRETS from Sept.-mid Oct. (test was in Jan.). It was such an easy read (after you get through cardio which is the first chapter) just doing a chapter/day. I feel it's an awesome substitute for FA Cases. Basically taking you through each discipline and organ system giving you case after case with the most high yield facts. The pictures in the path section are pretty good.

Agreed in the fact that reading SECRETS more than 1-2 hours per day and being less than 2 months out from your test date is probably not an effective use of time. Take notes throughout your reading and you can quickly review.

 

[RadicalRadon]

.

 

[ijn]

Shelf exams are not harder than Step 1. Come on.

It's a hell of a lot easier to remember how to manage COPD or ACS than the random ass minutiae of biochemistry, genetics, cell biology, etc.

 

[KinasePro]

No problem, man. it's just silly seeing how much people put into this test. It's not even a "hard" test and people make it out to be some monster. Shelf exams are generally harder than step exams due to clinical responsibilities. I can understand the perspective of IMGs though, since even an average score may mean not matching at all.

This is why you should always take advice from senior medical students with a grain of salt. Once they've passed a given hurdle, it's almost always described as "not as bad as everyone makes it out to be" or downplayed in some other manner.

 

[Geekchick921]

Alright guys, how the hell many self-assessments/practice tests should I be taking? I assume the NBME's are the most representative, right? Should I bother with the ones from Uworld or just buy their Qbank?

Edit, also, can someone explain to me the benefits of these various "modes" of taking them like I'm 5 years old? I'm pretty sure I get it but I want to be sure.

 

[RadicalRadon]

.

 

[Old Style Nanny]

What's harder? Hitting 99 raw on every shelf or breaking 260 on step 1? People don't know how to study efficiently or know what's important clinically for step 1, so they do ridiculous things to try to know everything which is clearly impossible and unnecessary.

Are you suggesting anyone who knows what's important and knows how to study efficiently can get a 260+ with say, six weeks of prep, starting from scratch?

P.S. I know the Pareto principle can be interpreted as 80% of studying is done in 20% time, but is 80% really enough to get the high score?

 

[ijn]

What's harder? Hitting 99 raw on every shelf or breaking 260 on step 1? People don't know how to study efficiently or know what's important clinically for step 1, so they do ridiculous things to try to know everything which is clearly impossible and unnecessary.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Program directors don't look at raw scores for your shelf exams. If they even bother to look at your transcript it's to see if you got honors or not in the clerkship overall. The competition to get a high percentile shelf exam is much less than to get a top percentile Step 1 score. The former becomes meaningless when it's beyond what's necessary to get honors at your institution while the latter can determine your career.

 

[Zzmed]

while the latter can determine your career.

Do you really believe that step 1 score will actually cost you your career?

 

[loveoforganic2]

Do you really believe that step 1 score will actually cost you your career?

You really think certain scores won't more or less lock you out of certain fields?