Does any one know the avg. is for programs like MGH, Brigham, UCSF, Columbia, Cornell, etc? I know there is more to an applicant than just board scores but this is something objective that I'd like to know. Thanks
I think most people will say that at the very least, you need to have a 230 on step I to pass through the screening process.Does any one know the avg. is for programs like MGH, Brigham, UCSF, Columbia, Cornell, etc? I know there is more to an applicant than just board scores but this is something objective that I'd like to know. Thanks
I don't know about MGH, Brigham, etc. specifically, but I am located in the South and have called a few of the top programs down here to get this information.Yeah that is what I have seen on other threads but nonetheless, I wonder if their avg is in the 230s or 240s.
I think people obsess about average scores and cut-offs on Step 1 WAY more than is necessary. Do your best. That is all that it required. Also realize that most of the top programs (whatever that means) seek diverse, interesting, and accomplished residents. I did not get >230 on Step 1, but I interviewed at all of the competitive programs I applied to, including the big ones that are always mentioned on SDN. I worked hard, and I like the field. I never felt like my application was 'beneath any school'.Does any one know the avg. is for programs like MGH, Brigham, UCSF, Columbia, Cornell, etc? I know there is more to an applicant than just board scores but this is something objective that I'd like to know. Thanks
Ouch, I felt that one On a serious note, these do seem somewhat inflated to me. One thing to consider - these MAY include prelims who are going on to derm, rads, rad-onc etc. Emory has a very large class of prelim interns, and the 237 seems high to me just because they have such a large residency class in general, and there's such a small population of categorical IM applicants with > 230 board scores. Prelims tend to have super high board scores and may be inflating the average a little.I don't know about MGH, Brigham, etc. specifically, but I am located in the South and have called a few of the top programs down here to get this information.
This is from the program directors of each of these programs, so I think it would tend to be pretty accurate. It is hard to know if these data are always perfectly true, since every program wants to paint itself in a very positive light to potential applicants.
Emory University- Avg. Step I: 237
Vanderbilt University- Avg. Step I: 240 AND about 30% were AOA.
Pretty high scores, especially considering these are solid programs but by no means the top of the pack among IM residencies nationwide.
This NRMP thing is NOT useful for determining what PD's at the TOP programs think is important as it is diluted by a large number of non-competitive programs.Bottom line: Those with the best grades get the best jobs. This is true for every field, and it's true for medicine. It does not matter who you know or where you go but what you have done and can do and will do. (don't believe me all you good old boy, elitist, creatures of academic inbreeding... check the link under "Graduate of highly regarded medical school")
The stats given for the programs above do not surprise me in the least. These are top university programs with top house staff and top faculty. You better bring some kind of game if you want a piece.
not something to be proud of...I know personally I was selected for an interview specifically because of my CV filler at a top program.
I totally agree with this mirrortest.While I agree with your point, drjitsu, that we should all focus on gaining knowledge and accomplishing useful things that are important to us, rather than accumulating activities merely to fill our CV, I think you're being a bit extreme here.
First of all, I'm not sure I understand you're statement that getting an interview based on "CV filler" is something to be ashamed of. You defined community service as "CV filler" above. So I guess if a residency program chooses to consider an applicant's dedication to service/volunteerism when offering interviews, that is something that both parties should be ashamed of. Right.
Second of all, I agree that the handing out of interviews based solely on applicants' schools of origin (especially for those of us who aren't at the absolute top-tier schools) is frustrating. But there's another way to look at it. Imagine you're a PD. Over the years, you've found that residents who enter your program from medical school X have been competent and successful, while residents from medical school Y have struggled. If two similar applications are sitting on your desk, one from a student at medical school X and one at medical school Y, who are you going to invite for an interview? The name of the medical school on the CV is simply another piece of information that can be used (along with grades, letters, evals, research, etc...) to evaluate the potential a candidate has for succeeding at the next stage of training. I agree that it shouldn't be the primary factor, but to imply that it shouldn't even be considered is ridiculous (not nearly as ridiculous, however, as implying that candidates from top medical schools get interviews at top programs solely based on their school's name).
Finally, it's news to me that we all rank programs based only on reputation. I don't know or know of a single person who has done so. The vast majority of people rank based on what is best for their individual goals. If one's burning goal is to be department chair at JHU, then maybe ranking based solely on reputation is in line with these goals (and I'm certainly not commenting on whether this is good or bad...to each their own), but for the majority of applicants, many other factors come into play.
You've made a lot of generalizations that seem to stem from frustration with the whole "who you know"/nepotism/pedigree aspect of this field. I agree that this can be frustrating at times, for sure, but it's reality. As you said, work hard and gain knowledge, and things will most likely work out for the best. In the mean time, don't let the other stuff drive you crazy.
Sorry to disappoint you .... I actually am quite proud of my health work in a 3rd world country.not something to be proud of...
I'm sorry if I inadvertently offended you. No harm meant.Sorry to disappoint you .... I actually am quite proud of my health work in a 3rd world country and my former work as a firefighter.
The fact of the matter is at the top programs the people not only have top scores but are absolutely amazing people ... like someone at one of my interviews had climbed Everest. One girl had spent a year at NIH.
Its obvious you haven't been on the interview trail because exactly the "rumors" on SDN have proved to be spot on about what it takes to be a competitive candidate.
My feeling it is overall after interviewing is this is what it takes to be a competitive applicant in this order.
1. Top med school
2. High step 1 + 2 scores
4. CV fillers.
6. LOR from well known people
7. Not being a socially awkward ***** at interview.
You should do your CV fillers for whatever reason you want ... if you are simply doing them only to accomplish your career goals who cares?