What are my chances for Internal Medicine in California?

[KBryant24]

I can't seem to find out if my scores are competitive for ACGME Internal Medicine in California. Any input would be greatly appreciated!
Step 1 = 228
COMLEX = 600

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

I think you'll match somewhere with these stats. Maybe not at University programs though.

 

[AlteredScale]

There is a chances thread in the internal medicine sub forum. Post your stats there and you'll get feedback from residents as supposed to med students.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[the argus]

Don't mean to be harsh, but just posting your step 1/COMLEX score and asking if you'd be competitive for IM programs in CA shows that you really have no idea what applying to residency is all about. Your step 1 score is just one part of your application and in most specialties, especially IM, not the most important part. What's your class rank, step 2 score, research, LORs, etc, etc. No one that isn't just talking out of their ass could give any kind of meaningful answer to your question with the info you provided.

I'm sure there are literally hundreds of people in ACGME IM programs in CA with step 1 scores <230. Whether you will be one of them depends on many other things.

 

[jonpalnile]

What's your class rank, step 2 score, research, LORs, etc, etc. No one that isn't just talking out of their ass could give any kind of meaningful answer to your question with the info you provided.

.

But it seems like everyone seems to say, 1. Class rank barely matters. 2. Step 1 > step

Also every application can't I've seen always says they have good lors. I've don't think I've heard many say they had poor lors

 

[the argus]

But it seems like everyone seems to say, 1. Class rank barely matters. 2. Step 1 > step

Also every application can't I've seen always says they have good lors. I've don't think I've heard many say they had poor lors

Just because "everyone" seems to say something doesn't mean it's correct.

The truth is, everything in your applications matters. Is class rank as important as step scores? Probably not, but if a program is comparing 2 applicants with similar stats, 1 at the top of their class and 1 at the bottom, the person at the top of their class will win out every time.

The old adage that step 1 > step 2 is not always correct anymore, especially for IM. If you look at the most recent NRMP PD survey in IM, step 2 was rated as of greater importance than step 1 both when selecting applicants to interview and when making the rank list. It was of minimal greater importance, but it illustrates how important step 2 has become.

And it's true that all LORs basically say the applicant is great. But that doesn't mean all LORs are created equal. A letter from the chair of medicine or PD at a major university carries more weight than a letter from a random hospitalist at a community hospital. I'm a Caribbean grad, but I spent considerable time and energy setting up rotations at big institutions where I would have the opportunity to get letters from people with impressive titles.

Then there's research, leadership roles, etc, etc. All of these things combine to form your complete application, and that is what programs use when evaluating applicants.

It's ridiculous to think you could assess someone's ability to match just knowing their step 1/comlex score (and a very pedestrian score at that). Anyone who says they can is completely talking out of their ass.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

The old adage that step 1 > step 2 is not always correct anymore, especially for IM. If you look at the most recent NRMP PD survey in IM, step 2 was rated as of greater importance than step 1 both when selecting applicants to interview and when making the rank list. It was of minimal greater importance, but it illustrates how important step 2 has become.

not sure if we are looking at the same data but the bar graph clearly shows that Step1 > Step2 in selecting applicants for interview and for ranking.

 

[the argus]

not sure if we are looking at the same data but the bar graph clearly shows that Step1 > Step2 in selecting applicants for interview and for ranking.

Not for IM.

For selecting to interview, a slightly higher percentage of PDs use step 1 over step 2 (93% vs 91%), but the average rating of importance was higher for step 2 than step 1 (4.3 vs 4.2).

For ranking applicants, the same percentage used step 1 and step 2 (89%), but again step 2 had a slightly higher importance ranking (4.3 vs 4.2).

Like I said before, the differences are minimal. It just exemplifies that, at least in IM, the idea that step 1 is of far greater importance than step 2 is not really true.

 

[Postictal Raiden]

Not for IM.

For selecting to interview, a slightly higher percentage of PDs use step 1 over step 2 (93% vs 91%), but the average rating of importance was higher for step 2 than step 1 (4.3 vs 4.2).

For ranking applicants, the same percentage used step 1 and step 2 (89%), but again step 2 had a slightly higher importance ranking (4.3 vs 4.2).

Like I said before, the differences are minimal. It just exemplifies that, at least in IM, the idea that step 1 is of far greater importance than step 2 is not really true.

I see. Thanks.