Boards testable material vs what's covered in your classes

[bobthebutcher]

---

Members don't see this ad.

It seems like every school teaches the fundamentals of the major subjects: path, histo, anatomy, biochem, micro etc, but there has to be some discrepancy between the schools in terms of breadth and depth. I was looking at First Aid, and I've seen most of the things in the subjects we've covered before, but there are some syndromes or diseases or other specific topics that we haven't covered, and I'm pretty sure won't be covered in the remaining semesters (currently a first year).

For step 1, how much studying is going to be "new material"? It's said that a good chunk of what shows up on the exam is going to be new no matter how much you study, but just in your experience, have you all been surprised at how much "fresh learning" you've had to do in your boards prep?

It seems like most people study from review books or other prep materials (Q bank or world or whatever)-- I guess this is sort of a redundant question, but is it normal to scared by the amount of new diseases/drugs/conditions/cancers etc that you haven't seen before from your classes?

 

[ChiDO]

You should worry more about what is the "bs" they are teaching in class for the upcoming test that is not going to be on the boards. (ie. Professor goes on tangent about his super awesome research and devots half the lecture to it and then tests on it.)

I would say you probably cover 90%+.

 

[IM Substance P]

I'm at a strong medical school that purportedly "doesn't teach to the boards." I think that phrase means we learn more of the fundamentals of pathophysiology alongside the principles of patient care. Our pre-clinical curriculum is much more clinical than is expected for the boards.

My point in giving you that information: I had to learn a lot of new information for Step 1. Like a lot more. I'd estimate that 20-25% of my knowledge base for Step 1 was built in the couple of months leading up to the boards.