Boards 2023

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Of the two exams, I found the RadBio exam to be simple/more straightforward.

The physics exam had a mix of simple/straightforward questions but also several difficult questions that I was unable to eliminate some of the answer choices. There were multiple questions that I had to completely guess on (which is unsettling), and some that I was unable to find an answer for in Khan / Caggiano / Google afterwards. I also made a few mistakes on some of the easier questions as time was more of an issue with physics compared to radbio.

Good luck!
 
I agree with @6MVPhotons. Between the two, rad phys is the one that made me left unsettling after taking it. It covers a lot, but I felt that many questions did not belong to the exam and very few would get them right. As such, one's experience taking the exam would unlikely to improve unless you also have great insight/background as a physicist. That said, a solid foundation and some effort towards exam preparation should be good enough to get you to pass. I recall nothing about rad bio, it was straight forward, and with prep you will get enough questions right to not worry about it afterwards.

I left clinical written feeling the same way as I did rad phys. It is written exam on clinical oncology and this is the scope of the exam. It's like the exam taker is in a rotating tumor board for different sites but need to weigh in on all aspect of it, not just radiation. As such, I bet your experience will not drastically improve no matter what you do. Some of us are better at some sites and not as good on others. That said, barring circumstances precluding one from prepping right, one should be good enough to pass.

Best of luck.
 
I had a horrible experience with clinicals, thought there was a LOT of peds, which I decided not to spend too much time studying, so it stuck out to me. Most trial questions, you had to know the study well, i.e, like the major clinical outcome WITH some other associated information. They mostly tested large trials but there was some sneaky smaller studies I was surprised they asked. There were a few physical exam finding questions that reminded me of step 1 questions. Multiple image based questions. Some questions were very straightforward which was good. After this exam I felt the most uncomfortable. Did radoncquestions one full pass, then lost steam to do any more.

I took rad bio last year, finished the exam way ahead of time, easiest of the 3 for me. I made anki decks and watched wolochak's (sp?) videos, along with radoncquestions. I didn't read the radbio book. I don't remember physics well, but I passed, felt uneasy after this exam. Did Cagiano and practice exams.
 
Contrary to the above I felt better about physics than rad bio. It felt like rad bio was either a really complicated increase/decrease question with multiple fill in the blanks, or very short pick the correct gene etc. A lot of stuff was you either know it, or you don’t without much reasoning involved. They tested some pretty obscure genes that I had never heard of, so it was somewhat unnerving. I went through most of the Hall textbook, Wolocheks videos, attended the Maryland review course, did the Astro study guide questions, and did most of the rad onc questions and definitely saw some stuff on the test that wasn’t in those resources. To be fair, our programs rad bio didactic curriculum is pretty weak relative to other programs I would guess. One thing I wish I had spent more time on was systemic therapy stuff, was surprised how much that was tested. I have contemplated giving some of the Astro study guide questions about systemic therapy to a couple med onc colleagues - they might not break 60% lol

In contrast I felt a lot better about physics. It felt like the majority of questions I knew or could at least use test-taking skills and reasoning to support answer choices on questions I didn’t know automatically. Went through caggianos online course, Maryland review course, did 5 most recent raphex exams, most rad onc questions, and spent time reading chapters in McDermott’s textbook in subjects that I was weak on from the raphex tests.
 
Pass rate for physics down to 88%. Wondering if we have another 2018 debacle on our hands next year.
 
1691670679414.png


1691670703199.png


1691670724338.png


97% clinical, 88% physics, 93% bio.

So not 2018 levels, but for physics at least, tied with the second lowest in ~7 years.

I know what insane, irrelevant questions I saw on my physics boards. It takes so much effort not to discuss them in public because even now, years later, I can't believe some of them.

Not sure 88% is "pitchfork level" of course but - as always, are we on the correct path to protecting the public and ensuring minimal competence with this specific set of requirements?
 
elementaryschooleconomics said:
View attachment 375501

View attachment 375502

View attachment 375503

97% clinical, 88% physics, 93% bio.

So not 2018 levels, but for physics at least, tied with the second lowest in ~7 years.

I know what insane, irrelevant questions I saw on my physics boards. It takes so much effort not to discuss them in public because even now, years later, I can't believe some of them.

Not sure 88% is "pitchfork level" of course but - as always, are we on the correct path to protecting the public and ensuring minimal competence with this specific set of requirements?
Click to expand...
When did radonc jump the shark in the match? 2018?
 
I hadn't seen clinical pass rates before. Interesting as there was a dip in the 2017 clinical pass rate.

Now, I would consider the class that took the clinical written exam in 2017 to be the absolute peak of peak radonc. (Of course adjacent classes all excellent). I interviewed this class. It was insane.

Presumably a different set of experts setting the Angoff cut scores for clinical exam?

Obviously not failing anyone for several years after.

Wonder if there was a certain cultural input that was affecting the Angoff method during the time when the 2017 clinical and 2018 science tests were being formulated? Obviously there was an impact on cut scores after the 2018 debacle.
 
elementaryschooleconomics said:
View attachment 375501

View attachment 375502

View attachment 375503

97% clinical, 88% physics, 93% bio.

So not 2018 levels, but for physics at least, tied with the second lowest in ~7 years.

I know what insane, irrelevant questions I saw on my physics boards. It takes so much effort not to discuss them in public because even now, years later, I can't believe some of them.

Not sure 88% is "pitchfork level" of course but - as always, are we on the correct path to protecting the public and ensuring minimal competence with this specific set of requirements?
Click to expand...

88% can't be pitchfork level. 90-95% rate should be the normal. 98% is why bother even having a test.

Perhaps a few enthusiastic but otherwise unprepared PGY-3s who took physics hoping to not have to waste another year of residency learning it again given the recent changes that you don't have to be a PGY-4 to do physics?
 
evilbooyaa said:
88% can't be pitchfork level. 90-95% rate should be the normal. 98% is why bother even having a test.

Perhaps a few enthusiastic but otherwise unprepared PGY-3s who took physics hoping to not have to waste another year of residency learning it again given the recent changes that you don't have to be a PGY-4 to do physics?
Click to expand...
Even if pass rate were to be 98%, it wouldn't necessarily reflect an easy test, but just that many residents are dedicating a lot more time to pass minimum competency tests after the 2018 debacle in the setting of these tests only being offered once a year.
 
Dare2Dream said:
Even if pass rate were to be 98%, it wouldn't necessarily reflect an easy test, but just that many residents are dedicating a lot more time to pass minimum competency tests after the 2018 debacle in the setting of these tests only being offered once a year.
Click to expand...

One of the many problems of 2018 and these tests in general is that the time and material you study doesn't reflect the exam content
It's a once a year crapshoot
 
metallica81788 said:
One of the many problems of 2018 and these tests in general is that the time and material you study doesn't reflect the exam content
It's a once a year crapshoot
Click to expand...

I have been so mad about this since I joined this field. It is occupational malpractice in my opinion.

This is the study guide ABR offers for medical physics.

ABR

Study Guide for Medical Physics for Radiation Oncology Last verified on August 31, 2022 Download this study guide in printable .pdf format. This exam tests your knowledge of the principles of radiation physics underlying the practice of radiation oncology. Included are questions on the general...
www.theabr.org www.theabr.org

Could this organization put in any less effort for the money they are paid? It is such a joke.

Per them, 20% of the test is "treatment planning". Here is what you should study for that:

1691698787178.png

They pay people $0 to write the test, post this garbage, then turn around and threaten people about "recalls".

AYFKM?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Rad Onc Oral Boards: To quote or not quote studies?
Replies
19
Views
3K
medgator
M
RadOnc2019
Radiation Oncology Oral Boards 2025
Replies
0
Views
2K
RadOnc2019
RadOnc2019
Y
ASTRO 2023
2 3
Replies
148
Views
13K
NotMattSpraker
N
Palex80
ESMO 2023
Replies
26
Views
4K
Mandelin Rain
M
P
Rad Onc oral boards
Replies
10
Views
3K
Barcelona PSG
B
Top Bottom