Average step 1 score for each medical school?

[PL198]

---

Members don't see this ad.

True, grades don't compare across schools, but knowing how someone compares to their peers who went through the same thing is valuable in itself. It would give step scores some context that they currently don't have. under the current system your step score is the only metric that defines you in a true p/f system. Sure, there's a fairness and objectivity to that, but having context could be valuable. A 240 from a top student vs an above average one vs a below average one each tells a different story.

how is that story different? not to mention all the true p/f schools are great schools, so it's assumed you're a good student besides the step 1 score. it's not like many people get into lerner and then become a slacker. a 240 from a "poorly performing" student in a graded school would be more impressive to me than one from a good school. the first one would show me intelligence as a strong point whereas the second would show intelligence as a weak point. If both have the same score on an exam which basically values your determination and hard work over time, I'm going to take the one that indicates higher intelligence 100/100. Not to mention if you start out at a way better school (therefore indicating most likely a better student at start of school, but end up with same score as someone who went to a worse school, that reflects poorly on the good schools' kid).

 

[operaman]

how is that story different? not to mention all the true p/f schools are great schools, so it's assumed you're a good student besides the step 1 score. it's not like many people get into lerner and then become a slacker. a 240 from a "poorly performing" student in a graded school would be more impressive to me than one from a good school. the first one would show me intelligence as a strong point whereas the second would show intelligence as a weak point. If both have the same score on an exam which basically values your determination and hard work over time, I'm going to take the one that indicates higher intelligence 100/100. Not to mention if you start out at a way better school (therefore indicating most likely a better student at start of school, but end up with same score as someone who went to a worse school, that reflects poorly on the good schools' kid).

I'd actually be more wary of the poorly performing student with the 240. I'd wonder why he did so well on boards but so poorly in class. If I were a PD, I'd probably value consistency over test taking ability. I'd rather a strong student with a solid 240 than a poorly performing student with a 270.

 

[redpanda]

So if the average Step 1 is very low, the students are more likely the issue instead of the curriculum? Then why do curriculum changes result in avg. board score drops or elevations hmmm?

Nonsense, nonsense and nonsense. Seriously go to a school that teaches for the boards, since PDs see it as a more objective metric.

If a school wants to experiment with their curriculum they should just abolish the boards. If they are not then they're knowingly toying with the future of their students.

The purpose of the first two years is to get the necessary pre clinical knowledge and that is what Step 1 is intended to test. All schools should teach for the boards. period!. In fact that's the whole point of the first two years!!! If thats not the case then abolish the boards for they serve no purpose in assessing the required knowledge. Don't hate me cause I'm logical.

The point of Step 1 and its predecessors has always been to establish a minimum level of knowledge for students midway through medical school. Needless to say, it isn't a terribly bright idea to only teach the minimum knowledge base, which is why programs have been teaching a whole lot more material than what actually appears on Step 1. They already teach for the boards. They cover the vast majority of core material on the exam and there are plenty of review materials around to tell you what the common stuff is in the exam. The school's focus is to train you up to be an intern when you finish in a residency that you'd like to be in, not to make you do awesome on a test which no one cares about the day after Match Day.

TL;DR: Teaching to tests is a terribly shortsighted idea. The point of med school is not to pass (or ace) tests.

 

[DocVader1990]

how is scarcity a problem when MD match is like 99 % and DO and FMG essentially fill spots that are left over

oh wait it's not

You mean the spots that nobody wants in the middle of nowhere. Your telling me anybody can go Derm cause there are plenty of spots and that there is no competition and everybody can do whatever they want wherever regardless of scores??? The scarce resources are the specialties/ programs in good locations. It's obvious that you lack understanding of what I mean so why bother?

The point of Step 1 and its predecessors has always been to establish a minimum level of knowledge for students midway through medical school. Needless to say, it isn't a terribly bright idea to only teach the minimum knowledge base, which is why programs have been teaching a whole lot more material than what actually appears on Step 1. They already teach for the boards. They cover the vast majority of core material on the exam and there are plenty of review materials around to tell you what the common stuff is in the exam. The school's focus is to train you up to be an intern when you finish in a residency that you'd like to be in, not to make you do awesome on a test which no one cares about the day after Match Day.

TL;DR: Teaching to tests is a terribly shortsighted idea. The point of med school is not to pass (or ace) tests.

Completely agree with you and in an ideal world with unicorns and rainbows you would be right. Unfortunately in reality your actual knowledge base and preparedness won't get you far against a student who scored better on the boards than you, in fact statistically he will match better than you.

Do most schools teach for the boards already? Probably. Yet, it's clear that some do better than others and some in the lower Step 1 average schools may use hard work and review material ( Pathoma, First Aid, etc...) to compensate for an otherwise lackluster curriculum that would place them at a disadvantage.

But on SDN the school is never to blame, its the individual students, the lower Step 1 avg school have "poorer students/ test takers" not issues with their curriculum. It's possible don't get me wrong, but the lack of variation in scores from year to year at certain schools with a specific curriculum in place shows that its not as much about the individual effort as we would like to believe.

 

[PL198]

You mean the spots that nobody wants in the middle of nowhere. Your telling me anybody can go Derm cause there are plenty of spots and that there is no competition and everybody can do whatever they want wherever regardless of scores??? The scarce resources are the specialties/ programs in good locations. It's obvious that you lack understanding of what I mean so why bother?





Completely agree with you and in an ideal world with unicorns and rainbows you would be right. Unfortunately in reality your actual knowledge base and preparedness won't get you far against a student who scored better on the boards than you, in fact statistically he will match better than you.

Do most schools teach for the boards already? Probably. Yet, it's clear that some do better than others and some in the lower Step 1 average schools may use hard work and review material ( Pathoma, First Aid, etc...) to compensate for an otherwise lackluster curriculum that would place them at a disadvantage.

But on SDN the school is never to blame, its the individual students, the lower Step 1 avg school have "poorer students/ test takers" not issues with their curriculum. It's possible don't get me wrong, but the lack of variation in scores from year to year at certain schools with a specific curriculum in place shows that its not as much about the individual effort as we would like to believe.

huh? if there was variation, that would signify that curriculum matters. if there wasn't, that would signify that the quality of student and therefore their likely amount of determination is the deciding factor. if curriculum was important you'd see some random crappy school with an avg of 240 because they figured out a magic formula for success. if the step 1 scores pretty much fall in line with the prestige of school and thus by extension their students, then student effort would be more important.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Step 1 is like the worst test ever to judge clinical knowledge by. It tests such random information, such minutia, such nonsense that I don't see why PDs use this as a metric. Step 1 is like 40% related to clinical medicine and even at that, it's extremely superficial. Does anyone really care that you know that beta-thalessemia is a defect in the promoter region of the beta globin gene while alpha-thalessemia is a deletion in the alpha globin gene? **** no, it's entierely useless information. It doesn't even further understanding of disease processes, it's just filler information there for no good reason. That's pretty much the story for 50-70% of the exam.

Step 2 is what PDs should be looking at. That test actually correlates well with how you perform as a resident. I have no problem with stratification of students. Just use the right metric to do so.

 

[Wordead]

Step 1 is like the worst test ever to judge clinical knowledge by. It tests such random information, such minutia, such nonsense that I don't see why PDs use this as a metric. Step 1 is like 40% related to clinical medicine and even at that, it's extremely superficial. Does anyone really care that you know that beta-thalessemia is a defect in the promoter region of the beta globin gene while alpha-thalessemia is a deletion in the alpha globin gene? **** no, it's entierely useless information. It doesn't even further understanding of disease processes, it's just filler information there for no good reason. That's pretty much the story for 50-70% of the exam.

Step 2 is what PDs should be looking at. That test actually correlates well with how you perform as a resident. I have no problem with stratification of students. Just use the right metric to do so.

The point is not to test clinical knowledge. Step 1 tests what your work ethic + intelligence is relative to to your peers. Everyone gets 2 years of classes and 4-8 weeks to prepare for it. Highly standardized, aside from the rare schools that mess with the timing.

Step 2 is not useful because the preparation period is extremely variable.

 

[MadRadLad]

huh? if there was variation, that would signify that curriculum matters. if there wasn't, that would signify that the quality of student and therefore their likely amount of determination is the deciding factor. if curriculum was important you'd see some random crappy school with an avg of 240 because they figured out a magic formula for success. if the step 1 scores pretty much fall in line with the prestige of school and thus by extension their students, then student effort would be more important.

I agree with this. If it was as simple as just creating a curriculum to cater exclusively to the test, then you would probably see some newer schools implementing such a thing and broadcasting their class's amazing step 1 scores.

I think that curriculum CAN play a role, but it's a tiny part compared to student effort.

 

[Greenberg702]

Step 1 is like the worst test ever to judge clinical knowledge by. It tests such random information, such minutia, such nonsense that I don't see why PDs use this as a metric. Step 1 is like 40% related to clinical medicine and even at that, it's extremely superficial. Does anyone really care that you know that beta-thalessemia is a defect in the promoter region of the beta globin gene while alpha-thalessemia is a deletion in the alpha globin gene? **** no, it's entierely useless information. It doesn't even further understanding of disease processes, it's just filler information there for no good reason. That's pretty much the story for 50-70% of the exam.

Step 2 is what PDs should be looking at. That test actually correlates well with how you perform as a resident. I have no problem with stratification of students. Just use the right metric to do so.

Step 1 is used as a screening tool to gauge intelligence + hard work, not to test clinical knowledge. The MCAT tests almost nothing that's relevant to med school but it's a great test to see how hard you bust your ass to prepare for it. Most MD students do really well on Step 2 anyway.

 

[PL198]

Step 1 is like the worst test ever to judge clinical knowledge by. It tests such random information, such minutia, such nonsense that I don't see why PDs use this as a metric. Step 1 is like 40% related to clinical medicine and even at that, it's extremely superficial. Does anyone really care that you know that beta-thalessemia is a defect in the promoter region of the beta globin gene while alpha-thalessemia is a deletion in the alpha globin gene? **** no, it's entierely useless information. It doesn't even further understanding of disease processes, it's just filler information there for no good reason. That's pretty much the story for 50-70% of the exam.

Step 2 is what PDs should be looking at. That test actually correlates well with how you perform as a resident. I have no problem with stratification of students. Just use the right metric to do so.

I still think you have a guilt complex due to your score and agree with wordead

 

[PL198]

i think the minutiae is pretty important. Everything seems minute until you see its application. There are loads of things I thought were useless as a first year, that I'm using now to either explain something else or that actually is relevant and I was just being stupid about.

 

[notbobtrustme]

I still think you have a guilt complex due to your score and agree with wordead

The only thing I feel guilty about my score is not getting a 270 because I missed two slam dunk questions on my exam.

 

[operaman]

Most MD students do really well on Step 2 anyway.

This is not entirely true, but a common misunderstanding. The three digit scale on step 2 is very different from step 1. You can easily see this on the norm tables published by the nbme and linked to earlier in this thread. Most people get a higher three digit score than their step 1, but the relationship is meaningless because it's a totally different scale. A 15 point increase in step 2 is pretty much the same score, relatively speaking. I'm guessing that many PDs aren't yet aware of this since the usmle only recently published their norms tables.

 

[redpanda]

Unfortunately in reality your actual knowledge base and preparedness won't get you far against a student who scored better on the boards than you, in fact statistically he will match better than you.

The "matching better" bit may in fact because "actual" or shall I call it total knowledge base and ability to know immense amounts of things on Step 1 (to the mythical 300!) actually run together as characteristics in students.

 

[PL198]

This is not entirely true, but a common misunderstanding. The three digit scale on step 2 is very different from step 1. You can easily see this on the norm tables published by the nbme and linked to earlier in this thread. Most people get a higher three digit score than their step 1, but the relationship is meaningless because it's a totally different scale. A 15 point increase in step 2 is pretty much the same score, relatively speaking. I'm guessing that many PDs aren't yet aware of this since the usmle only recently published their norms tables.

so the step 2 mean is like 245? it seems like they should revise these scales or the exams as people progressively do better on the numerically. If the avg of step 1 gets to be 250 it's going to be so difficult to stratify candidates and single questions will be deciding if someone is above average or below.

 

[operaman]

so the step 2 mean is like 245? it seems like they should revise these scales or the exams as people progressively do better on the numerically. If the avg of step 1 gets to be 250 it's going to be so difficult to stratify candidates and single questions will be deciding if someone is above average or below.

Well the scaling is designed to preserve the relative meaning of the score for that exam over time. Step 1 averages keep increasing as students put more effort into prep. My guess is that it will eventually plateau.

They really should use a different scale entirely for different step exams to avoid confusion.

 

[jw3600]

I'd actually be more wary of the poorly performing student with the 240. I'd wonder why he did so well on boards but so poorly in class. If I were a PD, I'd probably value consistency over test taking ability. I'd rather a strong student with a solid 240 than a poorly performing student with a 270.

You are cherry picking here. Your hypothetical is something that nearly everyone agrees with. But you picked 80th+ percentile scores. Change it to 240 and 210. Every PD in the country, you, and I are choosing the 240- 99 times out of 100 (everything else being similar other than the differences in class performance you alluded to). It's similar to how for medical school applications a 3.8/33 will fare much better than a 3.5/38.

 

[operaman]

You are cherry picking here. Your hypothetical is something that nearly everyone agrees with. But you picked 80th+ percentile scores. Change it to 240 and 210. Every PD in the country, you, and I are choosing the 240- 99 times out of 100 (everything else being similar other than the differences in class performance you alluded to). It's similar to how for medical school applications a 3.8/33 will fare much better than a 3.5/38.

True, all things equal I'd take the higher score too. But even here I'd probably look more favorably on the weaker student with a 210 than a weaker student with a 240. I'm a big fan of consistency and I would wonder how someone could perform so differently in class vs boards. I would worry that they blew off classes and focused on step 1, possibly suggestive of an attitude I find particularly disturbing. I'd definitely prefer an average student with a 210 over a poor student with a 240.

unfortunately, without grades and ranking, the step score is the only piece people have.

 

[PL198]

True, all things equal I'd take the higher score too. But even here I'd probably look more favorably on the weaker student with a 210 than a weaker student with a 240. I'm a big fan of consistency and I would wonder how someone could perform so differently in class vs boards. I would worry that they blew off classes and focused on step 1, possibly suggestive of an attitude I find particularly disturbing. I'd definitely prefer an average student with a 210 over a poor student with a 240.

unfortunately, without grades and ranking, the step score is the only piece people have.

wait, so you're telling me you'd prefer a 210 average student over a 240 poor student?

 

[medstudent7860]

I'd actually be more wary of the poorly performing student with the 240. I'd wonder why he did so well on boards but so poorly in class. If I were a PD, I'd probably value consistency over test taking ability. I'd rather a strong student with a solid 240 than a poorly performing student with a 270.

What would you define as poorly performing? I was an average student at my med school in preclinical classes (my school has letter grades, so I had a 3.5 gpa whereas many of my peers had 4.0s) but I performed a lot better than most of them on Step 1.

 

[operaman]

wait, so you're telling me you'd prefer a 210 average student over a 240 poor student?

Yes.

One caveat: I would ask both of them about the disparity, and the answer could dramatically alter my choice.

 

[PL198]

Yes.

One caveat: I would ask both of them about the disparity, and the answer could dramatically alter my choice.

what could the 240 say to change your mind

 

[Zedor]

wait, so you're telling me you'd prefer a 210 average student over a 240 poor student?

Just curious if this actually happens in real life. Do poor students score that high and do average students score that low? Amongst my friends, the poor students scored poorly.

 

[jw3600]

Yes.

One caveat: I would ask both of them about the disparity, and the answer could dramatically alter my choice.

How about this for an answer. My school teaches OMM and it wasn't worth taking away from other valuable classes and board studying to try and ace those classes. Easier to show up with a pulse and pass. There are so many variables here and people could spin it anyway they want. Seems like it's not a reliable way to judge someone.

I hate this current doublespeak out there:

"Pre clinical grades do not matter"
"Inconsistent performance is worrisome"

and

"All the matters is the boards baby"
"If you have consistent class performance, you can overcome a 210" (which is a less and less competitive score every year)


Someone just freakin' tell me what the verdict is.

 

[jw3600]

Just curious if this actually happens in real life. Do poor students score that high and do average students score that low? Amongst my friends, the poor students scored poorly.

No stats is a binary function and there is never a spectrum of outcomes.

/sarcasm

 

[Zedor]

How about this for an answer. My school teaches OMM and it wasn't worth taking away from other valuable classes and board studying to try and ace those classes. Easier to show up with a pulse and pass. There are so many variables here and people could spin it anyway they want. Seems like it's not a reliable way to judge someone.

I hate this current doublespeak out there:

"Pre clinical grades do not matter"
"Inconsistent performance is worrisome"

and

"All the matters is the boards baby"
"If you have consistent class performance, you can overcome a 210" (which is a less and less competitive score every year)


Someone just freakin' tell me what the verdict is.

An attending told me you should try to have no blemishes on your application, so that you have nothing to be sniped at in your interviews. Easier said than done.

 

[Zedor]

No stats is a binary function and there is never a spectrum of outcomes.

/sarcasm

lol point taken. You know what i meant.

 

[operaman]

What would you define as poorly performing? I was an average student at my med school in preclinical classes (my school has letter grades, so I had a 3.5 gpa whereas many of my peers had 4.0s) but I performed a lot better than most of them on Step 1.

I don't think there's an easy definition. Mostly I'm just trying to give examples where context can be helpful. A huge disparity in grades vs boards is one such example. Sounds like you didn't have that big of a disparity though. Average class grades and above average step score is not a huge difference. Now if you had a 2.4 and a 256, that would be harder to reconcile.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Just curious if this actually happens in real life. Do poor students score that high and do average students score that low? Amongst my friends, the poor students scored poorly.

I know only one person that bucked the trend. He was below average in class, but scored a 240+ on Step 1. For everyone else I know, they did similar to where they stood in class.

I'd say I was a outlier as well because I was above average in class but had the highest board score in the class.

 

[operaman]

what could the 240 say to change your mind

Lots of possibilities. Anything that tells me the performance was not accurately recorded by the grades. Maybe there was one terrible semester for good reasons that pulled the average down, but otherwise strong work.

 

[operaman]

How about this for an answer. My school teaches OMM and it wasn't worth taking away from other valuable classes and board studying to try and ace those classes. Easier to show up with a pulse and pass. There are so many variables here and people could spin it anyway they want. Seems like it's not a reliable way to judge someone.

I hate this current doublespeak out there:

"Pre clinical grades do not matter"
"Inconsistent performance is worrisome"

and

"All the matters is the boards baby"
"If you have consistent class performance, you can overcome a 210" (which is a less and less competitive score every year)


Someone just freakin' tell me what the verdict is.

That kind of answer would probably lead me to pass on the applicant. My worry would be that in the future they would continue to blow off anything they deemed to be less important.

I understand the frustration with seemingly conflicting advice. Lots of reasons for this, but hard to know if someone is giving you cutting edge advice from 2002 vs something current. Lots of people passing on what they've heard. Program directors at your school are probably the best resource for current advice tailored to you personally.

One thing we can say for sure: programs will strive to recruit the best applicants they can, so do your best.

 

[medstudent7860]

I don't think there's an easy definition. Mostly I'm just trying to give examples where context can be helpful. A huge disparity in grades vs boards is one such example. Sounds like you didn't have that big of a disparity though. Average class grades and above average step score is not a huge difference. Now if you had a 2.4 and a 256, that would be harder to reconcile.

I did have a couple of Cs early on too... :/ and a 3.5 is not considered good at my school; it actually is probably considered below average. My board score was above 245. Average board score at my school is around 215. The reason for the disparity is that the teachers at my school didn't change test questions from year to year and old test questions were handed down from older years and most of my class used those (hence, 4.0s), whereas I didn't. So I will definitely not be AOA either (my class rank is maybe ~60/100).

I think that board scores should be what are mostly looked at (that's always what I've heard). If a PD asks me about the disparity, I wouldn't know what to say (I can't just be like "the rest of my class cheated" - that sounds like I'm blaming others for my grades and not taking responsibility.)

Do you know if PDs actually consider this disparity or are you just saying that you personally think that they should?

 

[Th2]

I did have a couple of Cs early on too... :/ and a 3.5 is not considered good at my school; it actually is probably considered below average. My board score was above 245. Average board score at my school is around 215. The reason for the disparity is that the teachers at my school didn't change test questions from year to year and old test questions were handed down from older years and most of my class used those (hence, 4.0s), whereas I didn't. So I will definitely not be AOA either (my class rank is maybe ~60/100).

I think that board scores should be what are mostly looked at (that's always what I've heard). If a PD asks me about the disparity, I wouldn't know what to say (I can't just be like "the rest of my class cheated" - that sounds like I'm blaming others for my grades and not taking responsibility.)

Do you know if PDs actually consider this disparity or are you just saying that you personally think that they should?

This is totally conjecture, but I doubt they'd see that as a disparity or question it. But, I guess they could. I don't think this throws them under the cheater's bus too much:
"The school recycled test questions from the previous year, which my class had access to. But, I decided to not look at the questions in advance. I mean, we can't see the USMLE questions in advance, and I also wanted the tests to be an accurate assessment of my study habits. This strategy seems to have worked in my favor, since while my grades are meh *supinate/pronate hand in a wobbly meh gesture*, my board score is above the average of my class."

And I think that's honestly part of the truth. We have the same thing happen but only in biochemistry (test questions are pretty much available in advance), lo and behold our biochemistry step1 subscore is traditionally the lowest by a bit.

 

[operaman]

I did have a couple of Cs early on too... :/ and a 3.5 is not considered good at my school; it actually is probably considered below average. My board score was above 245. Average board score at my school is around 215. The reason for the disparity is that the teachers at my school didn't change test questions from year to year and old test questions were handed down from older years and most of my class used those (hence, 4.0s), whereas I didn't. So I will definitely not be AOA either (my class rank is maybe ~60/100).

I think that board scores should be what are mostly looked at (that's always what I've heard). If a PD asks me about the disparity, I wouldn't know what to say (I can't just be like "the rest of my class cheated" - that sounds like I'm blaming others for my grades and not taking responsibility.)

Do you know if PDs actually consider this disparity or are you just saying that you personally think that they should?

Everything I'm saying is just my own personal opinion.

Regardless of others or your class board average, you still maintained a b+ average and did well on step. That doesn't seem like a disparity at all. You're an above average student with an above average step that you should be proud of. I doubt anyone would ever ask, though you're wise to eschew blaming others even if they deserve it!

Boards are definitely the most important simply because so few schools even disclose grades and rank. I just wish it weren't that way because context can tell so much. P/F and no ranking really only benefits those at the bottom.

 

[jw3600]

That kind of answer would probably lead me to pass on the applicant. My worry would be that in the future they would continue to blow off anything they deemed to be less important.

You ever taken OMM?

Anyways, I appreciate your advice as always.

 

[operaman]

You ever taken OMM?

Anyways, I appreciate your advice as always.

Hahaha oh no I totally understand! Never taken it, but I can imagine it would be hard to invest a great amount of time in.

That said, I would probably sculpt my answer more along the lines of how hard I worked at OMM and tried to be good at it, but some of my classmates were just better suited for it than I was. You see, I had a hard time reconciling the hard science part of my brain with what we were being taught in that class, and I think my grade ultimately suffered for it. It's too bad, because things like OMM and a more holistic, humanistic approach were what initially drew me to osteopathic medicine, but once there I found my mind much better suited to the harder sciences and clinical work. AS you can see from my grades in all those other courses, the OMM was really an anomaly.

Obviously don't use something like that at an osteopathic program interview, but my guess is most allopathic programs would probably see OMM as more pseudoscience and sympathize with someone who really tried to buy into it and learn it, but just couldn't get past all the voodoo.

note: I'm not making any statements regarding OMM, simply saying how I would address it in an interview if that were the only grade bringing down my GPA/rank.

 

[PL198]

that just sounds like kissing up to me. if I was a PD I'd see right through that and know what you were really trying to say( that you didn't give a crap about OMM)

 

[Vexare]

I know only one person that bucked the trend. He was below average in class, but scored a 240+ on Step 1. For everyone else I know, they did similar to where they stood in class.

Obviously this is anecdotal but I know several people who scored about the mean consistently in class but then struggled with boards. Some of them made the mean, but most scored below the mean (and some considerably so). My point is that step 1 forces you to integrate knowledge across disciplines and some people aren't good at that. Performing well on block exams testing a few weeks worth of material that's all directly related after studying that alone is easier than understanding the pathophysiology of a disease process across several organ systems and applying that to a novel question. Sure, many questions on step 1 are testing one factoid and aren't nearly that complicated, but the level of integration and the vast body of information you need to master for step 1 certainly skews any direct correlation with GPA. This is why, as others have said, step 1 will continue to be the standard PD's use to compare students across the nation.

 

[alpinism]

Very rarely are you going to have someone with poor grades and a high step 1 score and vice versa.

A more common scenario is someone taking time from class to focus on step 1 prep during M2. As a result they may get average grades and but a higher step 1 score (for example 3.5 and a 245). At the same time some people do focus on classes and ignore step 1 material till their dedicated study period. As a result they may end up paying the price with a great grades but a lower step 1 score (for example 3.9 and a 225).

Without a doubt most PDs would prefer student #1 (3.5/245). Not to mention student #1 would be competitive for any specialty and would likely pass the screening cutoff for almost every residency program in the country.

 

[chronicidal]

Everyone in this thread has offered only qualitative, anecdotal claims.

Here's grades vs. Step 1 data from Einstein. I've highlighted several extremes in red ("anecdotes"). Judge for yourself how common it is for something to "buck the trend".

 

[PL198]

maybe they teach the boards? I'm pretty sure the people memorizing robbins and get 100s on class exams are not the same ones getting 260 on class exams at schools that don't teach to the boards.

 

[Beacopp665]

maybe they teach the boards? I'm pretty sure the people memorizing robbins and get 100s on class exams are not the same ones getting 260 on class exams at schools that don't teach to the boards.

Why would you think that? If theyre willing to put in that kind of effort for class those students would all of a sudden slack off for boards prep? Memorize FA and pathoma (especially with a solid foundation already) --> great score. My school doesn't teach to the boards but we get people who get good step scores and grades

 

[PL198]

because the people that get 260s aren't the people who only study for step 1 during dedicated. if you're memorizing robbins, you're unlikely to have much time to study for step 1 during the year.

 

[redpanda]

because the people that get 260s aren't the people who only study for step 1 during dedicated. if you're memorizing robbins, you're unlikely to have much time to study for step 1 during the year.

Dude, no one is memorizing Robbins, but there are plenty of people who are killing it in class and getting enviable Step 1 scores and they're much more common than the people that went the "studied boards relevant stuff only" route in the club of people with great scores.

 

[PL198]

if you go to a school that doesn't teach to the boards, memorizing robbins is exactly what you do to honor.

 

[seminoma]

if you go to a school that doesn't teach to the boards, memorizing robbins is exactly what you do to honor.

n=1, but not true in my case.

 

[Beacopp665]

if you go to a school that doesn't teach to the boards, memorizing robbins is exactly what you do to honor.

Maybe at your school but I don't think that's a generalization you can make. I certainly didn't and idk anyone who's memorized Robbins in its entirety.

because the people that get 260s aren't the people who only study for step 1 during dedicated. if you're memorizing robbins, you're unlikely to have much time to study for step 1 during the year.

Lol idk where you're getting this stuff or who's feeding it to you. I got 260s on step 1 and did well in my classes. In fact my score is likely because of the time i took to learn the material well so the study period was enough for me.

For the record if I, or anyone, actually memorized Robbins I'm sure that would only make step 1 easier not detract from their performance in any way

 

[PL198]

are you so dense where you can't understand what I mean by memorizing robbins? like really, you can get a 260 but you can't understand what I mean.

 

[PL198]

.

 

[redpanda]

are you so dense where you can't understand what I mean by memorizing robbins? like really, you can get a 260 but you can't understand what I mean.

And by "memorizing" Robbins, you mean studying pretty darn hard and learning a lot of material over what the average medical student learned? It makes a whole lot of sense that these people in my anecdotal (but certainly more than n=1 experience) are the ones who are not only doing well in class, but getting awesome board scores and, in a good number of cases, doing extremely well in MS3 as well.