Any info on how standard screenings will change during the 2024 Match cycle?

[deleted1139416]

Given the high step 1 failure rate, especially at some very well known schools, how are programs planning to change their screenings? With double the failure rate for MDs and DOs, sticking to a “Step 1 Fail” filter will leave out thousands of applicants. Will programs adjust screenings based on step 2 and have different cut offs for those who failed step 1? For example: If you get below a 230 on Step 2, you can screened out, if you get between a 230-240 you only get screened out if you failed step 1, and if you get >240, then you can considered regardless of failing step 1.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DO2015CA]

Nope. There are already enough applicants. Losing more could only be a good thing for programs. If they invite everyone that they want and still aren’t meeting numbers then they will uncheck a filter and invite more until they reach their interview numbers.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

There were programs that considered applicants with step failures before this, and they will likely continue to do so.

The increased fail rate may also be related to either the recent increase in the minimum passing score (194 to 196) or to the fact that when the exam went P/F, some students with likely high scores decided to accelerate their schedule and take it early to get a score -- resulting in a transient higher fail rate but no real change in performance.

Also possible that student focus on S1 has changed.

 

[MisterMukwa]

Competitive specialties will likely not interview any candidate with a fail on step 1, nor will competitive programs in relatively non-competitive specialties.

 

[operaman]

Any program that CAN screen will continue to do so. It’s just such an easy filter and there are too many applicants. I’m sure they will also switch and have S2 cutoffs. The volume of apps is so high and the number of faculty FTEs available to review them are quite limited.

The higher S1 fail rate is likely a blip but still only impacts the more marginal students. Even very prestigious school have some students that struggle to pass, and I’m sure these are the ones that also failed step.

 

[Dral]

I'm at a program in a competitive specialty. I don't know for sure, but I'm almost positive we won't invite someone with a step 1 fail. I don't think we're screening on step 2 at the current time. Things are going in the 'token' or 'signaling' direction for now it seems.

 

[DOVinciRobot]

Nope. If you fail S1 you’re going to get screened out at my program.

 

[deleted1139416]

Things are going in the 'token' or 'signaling' direction for now it seems.

Does the token and signaling really make a difference? Especially when competitive specialties are giving you 30 of them.

 

[Mouzer]

Does the token and signaling really make a difference? Especially when competitive specialties are giving you 30 of them.

I think the idea is that tokens and signals serve as defacto application caps. I didn't see the data myself but according to my OBGYN clerkship director nearly all the Obgyn interviews last season went to applicants who signaled. I could definitely see ortho and the like hoping that programs will focus their interviews on people who signaled and discourage med students from applying to 100+ programs going forward.

 

[deleted1139416]

I think the idea is that tokens and signals serve as defacto application caps. I didn't see the data myself but according to my OBGYN clerkship director nearly all the Obgyn interviews last season went to applicants who signaled. I could definitely see ortho and the like hoping that programs will focus their interviews on people who signaled and discourage med students from applying to 100+ programs going forward.

Oh gotcha. I think this might just be competitive specialties then because some specialties are only getting a handful of signals.

 

[Dral]

Does the token and signaling really make a difference? Especially when competitive specialties are giving you 30 of them.

For us it does. In a field where most people pan-apply, it cuts down the field a bit. When we are discussing applicants, our PD will usually throw in a comment "Oh, so you all know, this person signaled us".

 

[NotAProgDirector]

As mentioned, there are no "rules" and it's likely to totally depend upon field and program. Some competitive fields (Ortho, Derm and NS) have large numbers of signals -- I expect all programs will only consider those applicants who signaled them, so essentially an application cap.

Other fields have very few -- Neurology has only 3. Neuro programs are absolutely going to need to consider applicants who did not signal.

Medicine is in the middle with 7. This is going to completely depend upon the program. Some very competitive sites might get so many signals that it makes no sense to consider anyone else. Most programs will more seriously / quickly / deeply evaluate their signals but will need to consider other apps also.

 

[collegestud2013]

Given the high step 1 failure rate, especially at some very well known schools, how are programs planning to change their screenings? With double the failure rate for MDs and DOs, sticking to a “Step 1 Fail” filter will leave out thousands of applicants. Will programs adjust screenings based on step 2 and have different cut offs for those who failed step 1? For example: If you get below a 230 on Step 2, you can screened out, if you get between a 230-240 you only get screened out if you failed step 1, and if you get >240, then you can considered regardless of failing step 1.

Some of the less competitive specialties like lower tier IM, FM, peds, EM, will probably still let some USMDs in with a failed Step 1 score as long as there are no other major issues.