2012 match won't invlove two digit scores in ERAS transcript.

[cyneuron]

Changes to USMLE Procedures for Reporting Scores
(posted May 5, 2011)
Starting July 1, 2011, USMLE transcripts reported through the ERAS reporting system will no longer include score results on the two-digit score scale. USMLE results will continue to be reported on the three-digit scale. This affects the Step 1, 2 CK, and 3 examinations only; Step 2 CS will continue to be reported as pass or fail. These changes do not alter the score required to pass or the difficulty of any of the USMLE Step examinations.

Request if Attendings and Fellows may kindly provide their opinion on it...How will it possibly affect 2012 Residency Match applicants ?

If possible, please provide specific opinion on people with high two digit and relatively low three digit scores (for example, 97 / 224)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Law2Doc]

Changes to USMLE Procedures for Reporting Scores
(posted May 5, 2011)
Starting July 1, 2011, USMLE transcripts reported through the ERAS reporting system will no longer include score results on the two-digit score scale. USMLE results will continue to be reported on the three-digit scale. This affects the Step 1, 2 CK, and 3 examinations only; Step 2 CS will continue to be reported as pass or fail. These changes do not alter the score required to pass or the difficulty of any of the USMLE Step examinations.

Request if Attendings and Fellows may kindly provide their opinion on it...How will it affect 2012 Residency Match applicants ?

If possible, please provide specific opinion on people with high two digit and relatively low three digit scores (for example, 97 / 224)

This won't make a difference at all, and should have been done years ago. Everyone in US med school uses the 3 digit scores. US allo residencies focus on 3 digit scores. Only the IMGs seem to focus on the two digit scores, as seen repeatedly on SDN, perhaps confusing them with a percentage grade. Every PD I ever met talked 3 digit scores. So all this really does is formalize the way the US system was using these scores anyhow.

 

[cyneuron]

This won't make a difference at all, and should have been done years ago. Everyone in US med school uses the 3 digit scores. US allo residencies focus on 3 digit scores. Only the IMGs seem to focus on the two digit scores, as seen repeatedly on SDN, perhaps confusing them with a percentage grade. Every PD I ever met talked 3 digit scores. So all this really does is formalize the way the US system was using these scores anyhow.

Thanks for your reply Sir.

But many places literally filter applications based on two digit scores (say 80 for AMG and 90 for IMG).

How do you see that getting affected by this now that programs won't have access to two digit scores altogether ?

Will such programs now be using mean or even passing (or a number arbitrarily higher than passing) three digit score to filter applications (which is a necessity in face of thousands of applications) ?

 

[Law2Doc]

Thanks for your reply Sir.

But many places literally filter applications based on two digit scores (say 80 for AMG and 90 for IMG).

How do you see that getting affected by this now that programs won't have access to two digit scores altogether ?

Will such programs now be using mean or even passing (or a number arbitrarily higher than passing) three digit score to filter applications (which is a necessity in face of thousands of applications) ?

It was the very rare program that focused on two digit scores. Most focused on 3 digits anyhow. This won't change much. The one or two places that used 2 digit scores will just switch to 3. They may have actually been using 3 digits all along, but translated them into 2 digits in articles like the above for purposes of the IMG readers who seem unwilling to jump on board with the 3 digits like the other 60% of the match pool. Just focus on your 3 digit score, and you will be seeing your applicancy the way most PDs do. At any rate, as many people benefit from the 3 digit score as see it as a detriment.

But if you were competitive with the two digit score but not the 3 digit, guess what -- you weren't competitive in the eyes of PDs anyway. The only one you were kidding with the two digit score was yourself.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

But if you were competitive with the two digit score but not the 3 digit, guess what -- you weren't competitive in the eyes of PDs anyway. The only one you were kidding with the two digit score was yourself.

I'll second this. This change by the USMLE really doesn't change anything.

The 2 digit score is calculated from the 3 digit score. Exactly how that is done is unclear to me, but 75 always equals the minimum 3 digit pass score. So, as the 3 digit passing score has increased over the last decade, the conversion formula has had to change. For reasons that are not clear to me, as the minimum pass score increased, the conversion formula became "steeper", such that it became easier to get a higher 2 digit score.

Anyway, this changes almost nothing because:

1. All filtering in ERAS (i.e. automatically dividing applications based upon USMLE scores) is ONLY done with 3 digit scores. The only way to filter based upon 2 digit scores is to convert to a 3 digit score -- i.e. I could find an single applicant who has an "80", see what that 3 digit score was, and then filter based upon that score.

2. Three digit scores are "designed" to be comparible between test examinations and years. Hence, if you get a "220" on the USMLE, and 2 years later someone else gets a "220", theoretically you both did exactly the same. The same is not true for two digits scores, which have seen significant score inflation.

I say "almost" nothing, because some people still think in 2 digit scores. Now that 2 digit scores are being removed, they will need to learn to think in 3 digit scores. It's possible that someone out there didn't notice the score inflation in 2 digit scores, and will recalibrate their selection process (but this is very unlikely).

The only other effect I can think of is that there are some natural "breakpoints" in scores. Just like a product costing $19.99 seems much cheaper than something that's $20, a score of 79 seems much worse than 80, 89 is much worse than 90, and 99 is much better than 98. All of that is completely artificial -- in reality, a score of 79 is really about the same as 80, 80 is just a "natural breakpoint". When scores change to 3 digit only, those breakpoints will be 200 (which seems much better than 199), and probably 220 and 240. 200 equates with the mid 80's, 220 with the mid 90's, and 240 was definitely a 99. Hence, the new "natural breakpoints" are (perhaps) higher than the old natural breakpoints, and I guess it's possible that might have some effect. But, overall, this really is a non issue.

 

[Reductio]

This won't make a difference at all, and should have been done years ago. Everyone in US med school uses the 3 digit scores. US allo residencies focus on 3 digit scores. Only the IMGs seem to focus on the two digit scores, as seen repeatedly on SDN, perhaps confusing them with a percentage grade. Every PD I ever met talked 3 digit scores. So all this really does is formalize the way the US system was using these scores anyhow.

Yes it will, just not in the medical field.

Actually, as per the link posted above: The two-digit scale is intended to meet statutory requirements of some state medical boards that rely on a score scale that has 75 as the minimum passing score. The process used to convert three-digit scores to two-digit scores is designed in such a way that the three-digit minimum passing score in effect when the examinee tests is associated with a two-digit score of 75.

It means that some state statues will have to be changed to reflect the three digit scale.

 

[Smurfette]

Yes it will, just not in the medical field.

Actually, as per the link posted above: The two-digit scale is intended to meet statutory requirements of some state medical boards that rely on a score scale that has 75 as the minimum passing score. The process used to convert three-digit scores to two-digit scores is designed in such a way that the three-digit minimum passing score in effect when the examinee tests is associated with a two-digit score of 75.

It means that some state statues will have to be changed to reflect the three digit scale.

This still won't affect residency applicants from a matching perspective.

Most state boards require USMLE scores be sent directly to them by USMLE itself. The state boards will be able to see "PASS" on the document with the score. And if USMLE still reports a 2 digit score on the score report, and just does not report it to ERAS, this will make no difference to the state boards as they will still have the info they need.

 

[Law2Doc]

Yes it will, just not in the medical field.

Actually, as per the link posted above: The two-digit scale is intended to meet statutory requirements of some state medical boards that rely on a score scale that has 75 as the minimum passing score. The process used to convert three-digit scores to two-digit scores is designed in such a way that the three-digit minimum passing score in effect when the examinee tests is associated with a two-digit score of 75.

It means that some state statues will have to be changed to reflect the three digit scale.

I guess that's possible. But in most states this is a matter of administrative provisions from the state medical board, not state statute coming out of the legislature. The state medical board is the one that will have to change their process, which can be done without an act of state congress. I wouldn't sweat it. No real change is happening except insofar as IMGs seemed to hang on the two digit numbers more than they should.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

Yes it will, just not in the medical field.

Actually, as per the link posted above: The two-digit scale is intended to meet statutory requirements of some state medical boards that rely on a score scale that has 75 as the minimum passing score. The process used to convert three-digit scores to two-digit scores is designed in such a way that the three-digit minimum passing score in effect when the examinee tests is associated with a two-digit score of 75.

It means that some state statues will have to be changed to reflect the three digit scale.

In the full description on the USMLE site, they clarify that they will report 2 digit scores only to medical boards, so that state laws do not need to be changed.

 

[a winner is you]

People actually used the 2 digit score?

 

[GuzzyRon]

People actually used the 2 digit score?

In one word: yes.

 

[gutonc]

People actually used the 2 digit score?

Emphasis on the past tense at this point.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

It's about time. The amount of people who believe the 2 digit score is actually a percentile is pretty high, so it's time to eliminate that to get rid of that perception. I know my medical school used 2 digit scores to make us think our students performance was higher than it was, bragging about how many students scored a 90 or higher, when a 90 on Step 1 is I believe a below average score.

 

[WingedOx]

I'll second this. This change by the USMLE really doesn't change anything.

The 2 digit score is calculated from the 3 digit score. Exactly how that is done is unclear to me, but 75 always equals the minimum 3 digit pass score. So, as the 3 digit passing score has increased over the last decade, the conversion formula has had to change. For reasons that are not clear to me, as the minimum pass score increased, the conversion formula became "steeper", such that it became easier to get a higher 2 digit score.

Anyway, this changes almost nothing because:

1. All filtering in ERAS (i.e. automatically dividing applications based upon USMLE scores) is ONLY done with 3 digit scores. The only way to filter based upon 2 digit scores is to convert to a 3 digit score -- i.e. I could find an single applicant who has an "80", see what that 3 digit score was, and then filter based upon that score.

2. Three digit scores are "designed" to be comparible between test examinations and years. Hence, if you get a "220" on the USMLE, and 2 years later someone else gets a "220", theoretically you both did exactly the same. The same is not true for two digits scores, which have seen significant score inflation.

I say "almost" nothing, because some people still think in 2 digit scores. Now that 2 digit scores are being removed, they will need to learn to think in 3 digit scores. It's possible that someone out there didn't notice the score inflation in 2 digit scores, and will recalibrate their selection process (but this is very unlikely).

The only other effect I can think of is that there are some natural "breakpoints" in scores. Just like a product costing $19.99 seems much cheaper than something that's $20, a score of 79 seems much worse than 80, 89 is much worse than 90, and 99 is much better than 98. All of that is completely artificial -- in reality, a score of 79 is really about the same as 80, 80 is just a "natural breakpoint". When scores change to 3 digit only, those breakpoints will be 200 (which seems much better than 199), and probably 220 and 240. 200 equates with the mid 80's, 220 with the mid 90's, and 240 was definitely a 99. Hence, the new "natural breakpoints" are (perhaps) higher than the old natural breakpoints, and I guess it's possible that might have some effect. But, overall, this really is a non issue.

clearly the solution is to use a base-25 number system.

/ten bucks to whomever gets the reference.

 

[Ludicolo]

clearly the solution is to use a base-25 number system.

/ten bucks to whomever gets the reference.

http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/calculate_convert/dnicalculator.html

I accept PayPal.

 

[WingedOx]

right clicking on the image is not "getting the reference."

 

[Ludicolo]

right clicking on the image is not "getting the reference."

Oh well. I tried.
I sucked at Myst anyway.

 

[WingedOx]

Oh well. I tried.
I sucked at Myst anyway.

well i award you 10 million theoretical dollars anyway.

/Figured out Myst
//Had to cheat to beat Riven.