- Joined
- May 10, 2011
- Messages
- 559
- Reaction score
- 83
Will there be a new Charting the Outcomes of the Match for 2014? They haven't had a new one since 2011 I believe. It would be nice to have updated board scores, publications, etc for matching.
The Careers in Medicine website from AAMC claims they use data from 2012-2013 when showing you these figures for each specialty. Idk where they get it from.Will there be a new Charting the Outcomes of the Match for 2014? They haven't had a new one since 2011 I believe. It would be nice to have updated board scores, publications, etc for matching.
No new charting outcomes for the foreseeable future; the AAMC and NRMP aren't playing nice when it comes to the data used for analysis.
No new charting outcomes for the foreseeable future; the AAMC and NRMP aren't playing nice when it comes to the data used for analysis.
I e-mailed them asking if they were going to make it happen and this was the response "That’s what we are working to make happen. Hopefully we will have it in September 2014."
After all the applications have been submitted for the class of 2015. Well, at least they're trying.
Will the data they provide change anything that you do in the application cycle? Probably not.
250 is probably a bit extreme, I would guess that the averages are several points higher at best. i doubt the national trend of increase in step score has been a result more people getting 250+, rather it's more likely b/c more people are getting in the 230's and 240's.Well, some folks applying to ENT, plastics, and ortho may be using outdated numbers. For all we know the average Step 1 for ENT now is 250-something. Sub-average people would thus probably apply to a back-up specialty when in 2011 their numbers would have been okay. Slightly extreme example, I admit.
The Careers in Medicine website from AAMC claims they use data from 2012-2013 when showing you these figures for each specialty. Idk where they get it from.
The Careers in Medicine website from AAMC claims they use data from 2012-2013 when showing you these figures for each specialty. Idk where they get it from.
do you have a link showing those figures?
The source?
It's the Association of American Medical Colleges. Characteristics of Entering Residents, 2012-2013. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2013
Just because they don't release the charting data doesn't mean they can't share the means of Step 1 and Step 2.
Will the data they provide change anything that you do in the application cycle? Probably not.
On a side note, does anyone know if there is data available on if the Step one scores follow a normal distribution? (I always assumed it had a bimodal division because of the many international medical students taking it)
Cite just one paper that gives the Step 1 score distribution.The absolutely do not. The NBME has published multiple articles in Academic Medicine and other similar journals where they have said this. You can also do a quick look at the 2011 Charting the Outcomes Data and see that it's skewed. However, when it comes to averages for specific specialties, I don't know if those are Gaussian or not. My sense is that they are close just by eyeballing the histograms from CTO.
Cite just one paper that gives the Step 1 score distribution.
I have heard what he said from reliable sources.
Do you think that makes you a reliable source?
I've learned that medical people in general are very inflexible when it comes to adapting or using information. Somehow reasoning that if info doesn't come from a triple blinded randomized control trial that it can't be useful or believed.
Here's a simple method.
1. How important is the decision (1-10)? In this case, it's a 1.
2. Can someone make lots of money off of it? In this case, no. That means there won't be any RCTs anytime soon.
3. Who might know and can they be trusted? In this case, the people who are obssessive about Step scores and fraternize with those involved in writing questions.
I've learned that medical people in general are very inflexible when it comes to adapting or using information. Somehow reasoning that if info doesn't come from a triple blinded randomized control trial that it can't be useful or believed.
Here's a simple method.
1. How important is the decision (1-10)? In this case, it's a 1.
2. Can someone make lots of money off of it? In this case, no. That means there won't be any RCTs anytime soon.
3. Who might know and can they be trusted? In this case, the people who are obssessive about Step scores and fraternize with those involved in writing questions.
Unless I see a graph of the data with my own two eyes, I'm not going to take your word for it.
I'd expect no less from you.
And even if someone came up with a graph, you would be able to find flaws in the data or the methodology.
I just want to see descriptive stats of the Step 1 scores of a nationally representative sample from recent years. It's not that hard to screw up.
Cite just one paper that gives the Step 1 score distribution.
Right. If it was public info, I'm sure the SDN community would have found it by now.
I'll give you one better. I'll give you the score report (from 2013):
http://www.med-ed.virginia.edu/handbook/pdf/usmle1-13b.pdf
2011 CTO? It's from UVa's posting of their USMLE Step 1 score reports: http://www.med-ed.virginia.edu/handbook/academics/licensure.cfmWhere did they get those national numbers? Did the use the 2011 CTO?
The red bars are the people who took the USMLE Step 1 last year (nationally).I mean the red bars in the graph. They are labeled "national" but I always thought the score distribution of the usmle was a big secret. If that's true then scores are clearly negatively skewed.
The red bars are the people who took the USMLE Step 1 last year (nationally).
Like you were told in the Dermatology forum, if you think an avg. board score difference of 3 pts. of those who matched, means that a specialty is somehow getting less competitive, then you are an utter fool.According to the Careers in Medicine website, the average Step 1 for derm in 2012-2013 was 241, down from 244 in 2011. Derm is becoming less competitive like rads.
I'll give you one better. I'll give you the score report (from 2013):
http://www.med-ed.virginia.edu/handbook/pdf/usmle1-13b.pdf
LOL. Thanks! Actual data and evidence is always good (vs. the usual conjecture and anecdote)Ah, can always count on @DermViser to deliver. Thanks
I'll give you one better. I'll give you the score report (from 2013):
http://www.med-ed.virginia.edu/handbook/pdf/usmle1-13b.pdf
I don't think he was disagreeing with you. He was just asking for actual proof.They release those to all the deans. Our school released a similar chart with our scores/national scores.
Anyhow, this supports exactly what was said above.
I don't think he was disagreeing with you. He was just asking for actual proof.
I'm referring to post #21 and #24.This seems to be a common misunderstanding. Asking for proof does not equal disagreement.
I'm referring to post #21 and #24.
I'm referring to post #21 and #24.
says who2014 Charting Outcomes will be released on September 16th!
Good joke.2014 Charting Outcomes will be released on September 16th!
He's not telling the truth. Happens to be 1 day after turning in apps.says who
The only brouhaha is on SDN. Just for truths sake, you realize 241 and 244 and pretty negligible in terms of an actual difference right?With all the brouhaha about how competitive derm is (241 according to careers in medicine), I was surprised to find ENT at 244.