Board scores and trends

[firebird69guy]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Does anyone know where to find board score results for schools (including trends over the last few years)? Yes I tried google.. This could be a great resource in helping with our decisions (although I emphasize, it shouldn't be the only resource!!). If you know of a particular school's average board score, please post.

Good luck in the rest of the application process

 

[robotsonic]

I'm pretty sure this information is not available. Apparently some schools will tell you their average board scores when you interview there, but there is no public list of schools and their scores. It would be nice to have that information. I'm an MS4 and I don't know what my school's average board score is.

 

[etown]

I'm pretty sure this information is not available. Apparently some schools will tell you their average board scores when you interview there, but there is no public list of schools and their scores. It would be nice to have that information. I'm an MS4 and I don't know what my school's average board score is.

Baylor told me their average is 232-235, and that 220 or 230 is often the cutoff to get a highly competitive residency interview.

 

[tigress]

I think some schools tell their students, but not many make this info available to applicants or others. I agree that it would be useful to know. Personally I think board scores should be much more important in ranking schools than incoming MCAT scores. What matters is how well they teach medicine, right? And board scores are at least one measure of that.

I would be skeptical of most schools that claim their averages are 230+, although I'm sure some schools probably do achieve that. In any case, you can look at the board scores thread on the allopathic forum to see that people from all types of schools get awesome scores, and people from all types of schools get mediocre scores (not too many of those posted, of course!). So while quality of the school's education must count for something, it's probably to a large part based on individual study habits, test-taking skills, etc. At least that's what I'm telling myself 🙂

 

[t33sg1rl]

Consider this:
All medical students use the same small set of textbooks.
All medical students buy the same Board prep books.
All medical students have the exact same amount of time.
Many medical students don't bother with lectures.

Board scores for a school don't reflect anything about the school-they reflect that school's students. There are only a few schools that have Board scores farther than a few points from the national average, and you already know which ones they are, because you've already researched where the top (and bottom) students are.

One thing that should affect your decision is number of people failing boards-this does NOT point to any deficiencies in curriculum, but in my opinion, reflects a lack of help for struggling students. Bear in mind that at every school, there will be struggling students. The school has two options: ask them to repeat a year, or let them take the Boards unprepared. A school that lets people fail is not giving them that $150,000 of help that you've already paid for.

 

[tigress]

Well, they must reflect the curriculum in some degree. I know of one school that changed one part of its curriculum because the board scores weren't as good as they would have liked, and after making that change the scores went up. So that's not proof that the change caused the increase (maybe they started accepting better students, who knows), but it's strong evidence.

I do agree, though, with the above poster. You can probably do however well you're going to do on the boards at any school. But I think for me personally it would help to have a curriculum that is especially conducive to doing well.

 

[erin682]

Well, they must reflect the curriculum in some degree. I know of one school that changed one part of its curriculum because the board scores weren't as good as they would have liked, and after making that change the scores went up. So that's not proof that the change caused the increase (maybe they started accepting better students, who knows), but it's strong evidence.

I do agree, though, with the above poster. You can probably do however well you're going to do on the boards at any school. But I think for me personally it would help to have a curriculum that is especially conducive to doing well.

Yeah my school totally overhauled its curriculum when board scores weren't where they wanted them My class has been the guinea pig class to go through all the way with it so they won't know until this summer if its worked or not. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it has.

Also I agree with the above. Schools are not required to report board scores publicly and many don't. Also when schools do report scores you need to question that statistic. I'm not saying they are lying but statistics can be manipulated. Anyway I would worry more about match rates than board scores when looking at school if you're lucky enough to be able to choose among many.

 

[chef_NU]

I think a main reason for this is that, were board scores to be published, schools would be on the hot seat to keep them higher than the average. The idea is to prevent many medical schools from simply becoming Kaplan prep courses. After all, there is a lot more to the medical profession than being able to answer some multiple choice questions.

 

[Law2Doc]

Consider this:
All medical students use the same small set of textbooks.
All medical students buy the same Board prep books.
All medical students have the exact same amount of time.
Many medical students don't bother with lectures.

Board scores for a school don't reflect anything about the school-they reflect that school's students. There are only a few schools that have Board scores farther than a few points from the national average, and you already know which ones they are, because you've already researched where the top (and bottom) students are.

One thing that should affect your decision is number of people failing boards-this does NOT point to any deficiencies in curriculum, but in my opinion, reflects a lack of help for struggling students. Bear in mind that at every school, there will be struggling students. The school has two options: ask them to repeat a year, or let them take the Boards unprepared. A school that lets people fail is not giving them that $150,000 of help that you've already paid for.

Not quite right. While the same basic texts are used, and everyone basically uses the same board review books, there is huge variation between what schools choose or have time to cover and in what detail. No one learns what they need to know in board review -- that is hopefully at least the second time they are exposed to the material. There is different amounts of time allocated to various subjects, different kinds of testing, different areas of emphasis, PBL, additional clinical exposure sometimes at the expense of class time, etc -- a multitude of permeations. Some schools will be more on target with their chosen areas of emphasis, others wont. Sure, those who don't attend lectures dont get all of the benefit or detriment regarding this, but most still listen to the lectures on tape/avi at some point, or read the class notes, so they are still usually following the schools given program. It is the rare individual who ignores all the class notes and lectures and just learns on his own in toto. I've not come across anyone who totally ignores class notes, because frankly that's where most of your test is going to come from.
And while all students have the same amount of time to prepare for the boards throughout med school, different schools allocate that time very differently.
I would also note that of the couple of schools that actually brag about their average board scores to applicants, they are not always the ones I would consider those attended by the "top students". That being said, there is no comprehensive list of board scores across schools the OP is going to find, so unless the few schools you are interested in make their own averages available to applicants, you are SOL.

 

[deuist]

Although most schools will not publish their board scores, many will at least post their match list to their website. In my opinion, a match list is a more important measure of quality than Step I scores. Matching requires many factors (including board scores) that show how well residency programs think schools prepare their students. Step I, on the other hand, is only marginally important for most specialties.

 

[Law2Doc]

Although most schools will not publish their board scores, many will at least post their match list to their website. In my opinion, a match list is a more important measure of quality than Step I scores. Matching requires many factors (including board scores) that show how well residency programs think schools prepare their students. Step I, on the other hand, is only marginally important for most specialties.

You had me in agreement until your last sentence. Board scores are going to be a huge factor in getting into any competitive specialty.

 

[masterMood]

You had me in agreement until your last sentence. Board scores are going to be a huge factor in getting into any competitive specialty.

Board scores play a huge role in matching...as do sats in high school, as do mcats in college because it's the closest way to indicate students' performance.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

Step I, on the other hand, is only marginally important for most specialties.

Some schools have GPAs, other grade pass/fail/honors, etc. And since not everyone will have taken Step 2 by the time they start the Match, Step 1 is about the only common factor residencies have to judge applicants and is a major factor in competitiveness for residency.

 

[exmike]

I think a main reason for this is that, were board scores to be published, schools would be on the hot seat to keep them higher than the average. The idea is to prevent many medical schools from simply becoming Kaplan prep courses. After all, there is a lot more to the medical profession than being able to answer some multiple choice questions.

This is EXACTLY why the NBME doesnt publish average board scores. In fact the scores may be more of a reflection of the caliber of student that enters that school more than anything. Teaching for the boards does not = teaching for the wards. I dont think medical schools want to be pressured into teaching for the boards when their main objective the first two years is to prepare you to enter the wards with more than just book knowledge.

 

[Law2Doc]

This is EXACTLY why the NBME doesnt publish average board scores. In fact the scores may be more of a reflection of the caliber of student that enters that school more than anything. Teaching for the boards does not = teaching for the wards. I dont think medical schools want to be pressured into teaching for the boards when their main objective the first two years is to prepare you to enter the wards with more than just book knowledge.

That's all well and nice in theory, but as long as the board scores are a big component in competitive matching, and match lists are generally made available, med schools are going to be pressured to at least somewhat teach for the boards whether those actual scores are made public or not. So why not just get it all out in the open?

 

[exmike]

That's all well and nice in theory, but as long as the board scores are a big component in competitive matching, and match lists are generally made available, med schools are going to be pressured to at least somewhat teach for the boards whether those actual scores are made public or not. So why not just get it all out in the open?

Again, because board prep isnt the main charge of pre-clinical medical education.

This may be hearsay but it is told that a "lower ranked" school back in the day adopted step-1 targeted preclinical curriculum and ended up with the highest average board scores in the country. These students subsequently entered the wards ill prepared with disasterous results, prompting the school to revert back to a more balanced curriculum.

There are a lot of things a school needs to teach besides every intermediate of kreb's cycle. Things like patient interviewing skills, bedside manners, history taking, physical exam, understanding the humanistic side of medicine. These factors play a suprisingly important role in the wards and in practice, and given the limited time schools have to educate students in their first two years, it must be balanced with stuffing students with preclinical knowledge.

Sure, you can just have a basic sciences board focused curriculum and score high on the boards, but you may end up with basic science robots that are completely inept in the wards - and your clinical grades are as important if not more important than your Step 1 in matching.

aside: i honestly think that no matter where you go, how you do on step 1 is 90% based upon your person effort in studying for them. If you put an honest effort into board study, you'll probably score about the same no matter where you go. Just because you go to a school with a high avg score doesnt mean youll score better than if you went to one with a lower avg score!

 

[Law2Doc]

Again, because board prep isnt the main charge of pre-clinical medical education.

This may be hearsay but it is told that a "lower ranked" school back in the day adopted step-1 targeted preclinical curriculum and ended up with the highest average board scores in the country. These students subsequently entered the wards ill prepared with disasterous results, prompting the school to revert back to a more balanced curriculum.

There are a lot of things a school needs to teach besides every intermediate of kreb's cycle. Things like patient interviewing skills, bedside manners, history taking, physical exam, understanding the humanistic side of medicine. These factors play a suprisingly important role in the wards and in practice, and given the limited time schools have to educate students in their first two years, it must be balanced with stuffing students with preclinical knowledge.

Sure, you can just have a basic sciences board focused curriculum and score high on the boards, but you may end up with basic science robots that are completely inept in the wards - and your clinical grades are as important if not more important than your Step 1 in matching.

Makes sense to me, though I think the heavy use of the BCPM and MCAT already nets schools a good chunk of those inept basic science robot types. Perhaps the other stuff can be taught more easilly, though.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

There are a lot of things a school needs to teach besides every intermediate of kreb's cycle. Things like patient interviewing skills, bedside manners, history taking, physical exam, understanding the humanistic side of medicine. These factors play a suprisingly important role in the wards and in practice, and given the limited time schools have to educate students in their first two years, it must be balanced with stuffing students with preclinical knowledge.

I think this is understood, which is why in 2004 they added a Clinical Skills portion to Step 2 in addition to the traditional Clinical Knowledge questions.

 

[diosa428]

Back to the topic of the thread - Case Western's average Step 1 is 220, and Step 2 is 225.

 

[Law2Doc]

Back to the topic of the thread - Case Western's average Step 1 is 220, and Step 2 is 225.

Here's a link to UF's board score spread -- they are one of the school's that publicizes how well they do. http://www.med.ufl.edu/oea/cc/romrell5.html

 

[exmike]

Back to the topic of the thread - Case Western's average Step 1 is 220, and Step 2 is 225.

You're way off When I interviewed two years ago I was told it was 225 for Step 1. please stop spreading misinformation. We dont even know our avg board scores from the last two years, so I doubt you would have the faintest idea.

 

[deuist]

For UMiami last year, the average was 220. Our scores have gone up since we employed the module-style of learning.

 

[deuist]

Some schools have GPAs, other grade pass/fail/honors, etc. And since not everyone will have taken Step 2 by the time they start the Match, Step 1 is about the only common factor residencies have to judge applicants and is a major factor in competitiveness for residency.

Yes, Step I is important for very competitive specialties (e.g., derm and ortho), but other residency programs are only looking for a minimum level. For example, if you cross a required 220 barrier for EM, I don't think that a 240 is going to be the biggest factor in choosing one applicant another over who has a 230. Given that your rotation grade, rec letters, and interview are more important (*), applicants should focus more on clinical skills and 3rd year performance than on board scores.

(*) I got this list of criteria from Rules of the Road, a book about EM residencies, published by the American Academy of Emergency Medicine.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

Duke claims their average board scores for Step 1 is 235, though it was just what they told us.

I know for some residency programs they have cutoffs for interviews, i.e. we won't interview anyone with less than X on their Step 1. Above that, they assume you're competent and then go off the interview, recommendations, etc.

I'm a little wary of the importance of average board scores as an indicator of a medical school's curriculum, anyway. I doubt that X school has a higher average than Y school because they teach better, it seems more likely that they just attract brighter students in the first place.

 

[owenmichael]

You're way off When I interviewed two years ago I was told it was 225 for Step 1. please stop spreading misinformation. We dont even know our avg board scores from the last two years, so I doubt you would have the faintest idea.

Scores change from year to year?
Anyways
Harvard - 225
Mayo - 235
Stanford - 235
Those are all the ones I know

 

[Law2Doc]

Yes, Step I is important for very competitive specialties (e.g., derm and ortho), but other residency programs are only looking for a minimum level. For example, if you cross a required 220 barrier for EM, I don't think that a 240 is going to be the biggest factor in choosing one applicant another over who has a 230. Given that your rotation grade, rec letters, and interview are more important (*), applicants should focus more on clinical skills and 3rd year performance than on board scores.

(*) I got this list of criteria from Rules of the Road, a book about EM residencies, published by the American Academy of Emergency Medicine.

You will change your mind at least once as to what residency you want to go into. 99% of all med students do. So don't prematurely assume you won't want one of the residencies for which a high board score is necessary. Plus if EM gets more competitive in the next couple of years, that book may go by the wayside.

 

[diosa428]

You're way off When I interviewed two years ago I was told it was 225 for Step 1. please stop spreading misinformation. We dont even know our avg board scores from the last two years, so I doubt you would have the faintest idea.

Hey, guess what? I interviewed there on MONDAY (as in, January 9, 2006 - NOT 2 years ago), and they ALSO told US the average USMLE results (much like they did for you two years ago). And this handout, which I have sitting in front of me, lists the scores as 220 for Step 1 and 225 for Step 2. ALSO according to this handout, this is the average score for 1995-2004. So no, it does not include the scores from last year. Now who doesn't have the faintest idea?


Stop being a jerk.

 

[tigress]

From what I've read on other sdn forums, it seems that residencies mostly pay attention to the 2-digit step I score when determining any "cutoffs". So that's not really the same thing, because above a certain score everybody is a 99, and it compresses the scores down so that each 2-digit represents a range of raw scores. I'm not sure how this really plays into the discussion, but I thought it was interesting to add since a few people have mentioned residency cutoffs and ideal board scores.