Can you compare Step 1 scores from one year to the next?

[rocketbooster]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Based on some of the score reports ppl posted last summer, the average Step 1 score was 222 (+/- 22 I think?). Of the ones that just came out, the average was 224 +/- 22. Does that mean a 239 this year would be equal to a 237 last year?

If you are trying to get a good idea of average Step 1 scores for residencies, do you need to add +2 to every 2011 residency average? So, the ortho average last year was 240, does that mean the one this year (not sure when it gets published) will be 242? On the other hand, I suppose a different number of ppl and thus a different average of Step 1 percentiles applies each year, so it could theoretically drop, stay the same, or go up this year from last year. What do you think?

 

[mimelim]

If there is one thing that I learned from applying to vascular/gen surg this year, such differentiations are meaningless. There is no functional difference between a 237 and a 239. Anyone that tells you otherwise is trolling you. Do not misinterpret this. Step 1 score is incredibly important for residency matches. It is used as a screen and some decision making. But do not waste your time thinking about small differences in Step scores. Your Step 1 score is what it is. It may change where you apply to within a specialty, but the rule of thumb is and always has been, apply wide and apply broad. Do not over think this.

In the end, interview matters more than anything. Interviews depend on everything else in your application. Your research, your projects, you as a person. Your grades/scores matter, but nobody actually differentiates a 240 from a 242.

 

[WashMe]

Based on some of the score reports ppl posted last summer, the average Step 1 score was 222 (+/- 22 I think?). Of the ones that just came out, the average was 224 +/- 22. Does that mean a 239 this year would be equal to a 237 last year?

If you are trying to get a good idea of average Step 1 scores for residencies, do you need to add +2 to every 2011 residency average? So, the ortho average last year was 240, does that mean the one this year (not sure when it gets published) will be 242? On the other hand, I suppose a different number of ppl and thus a different average of Step 1 percentiles applies each year, so it could theoretically drop, stay the same, or go up this year from last year. What do you think?

There IS something that makes step I comparisons across years invalid, in my opinion... and that factor is the introduction of new board study resources.

Look at the number of scores in the high 260's to 275+ that have recently been posted in the step 1 forum. A majority of these people have had GREAT things to say about Pathoma, which is a new resource within the past year. While my friends and I were wasting time with overly-dense Goljan book (I took step 1 in 2011), the 2012 takers have added a clutch resource that is probably good for a 5-10 point boost (versus FA/UW alone with a minor sprinkling of Goljan, which is a reasonable comparison since Goljan was not very usable if saved for the dedicated study period).

 

[ijn]

Pathoma is wonderful, but I don't think it's the major driver for any average shifts. I think the averages are trending up because more and more medical students are using some sort of comprehensive video series (Kaplan, DIT, First Aid Express, etc.) plus UWorld as a baseline. A 220 is a 220 no matter what the year, but when everyone becomes a better test taker, the average shifts up.

 

[drizzt3117]

I agree that the scores are trending up; the 2011 class at my school averaged 8 points more than my class and the 2012 data isn't all back yet but the average right now is > 240 with no failures. Thoroughly average students at our school are getting 240s, which wasn't the norm before. Someone got a 280+ which has only happened once at our school in 20 years.

 

[rocketbooster]

There IS something that makes step I comparisons across years invalid, in my opinion... and that factor is the introduction of new board study resources.

Look at the number of scores in the high 260's to 275+ that have recently been posted in the step 1 forum. A majority of these people have had GREAT things to say about Pathoma, which is a new resource within the past year. While my friends and I were wasting time with overly-dense Goljan book (I took step 1 in 2011), the 2012 takers have added a clutch resource that is probably good for a 5-10 point boost (versus FA/UW alone with a minor sprinkling of Goljan, which is a reasonable comparison since Goljan was not very usable if saved for the dedicated study period).

Doubtful the case:

1) nbme just shifts the curve even if ppl are doing better. So you'd have to miss less to get that same 240 or whatever,

2) Pathoma was available for 2011 test takers as well. My friend used it last year (June 2011) and told me about it. If you took your test in summer 2010 then maybe you could make that case. But also, they still would just adjust the curve anyway.

 

[rocketbooster]

I agree that the scores are trending up; the 2011 class at my school averaged 8 points more than my class and the 2012 data isn't all back yet but the average right now is > 240 with no failures. Thoroughly average students at our school are getting 240s, which wasn't the norm before. Someone got a 280+ which has only happened once at our school in 20 years.

Again, you wouldn't see a change in scores tho bc they jut adjust the distribution. There should about the same # of 240s every year. Perhaps your class is doing better each year but students as a whole are the same or the nbme is just adjusting the scores so it's harder to get a 240 now

 

[rocketbooster]

If there is one thing that I learned from applying to vascular/gen surg this year, such differentiations are meaningless. There is no functional difference between a 237 and a 239. Anyone that tells you otherwise is trolling you. Do not misinterpret this. Step 1 score is incredibly important for residency matches. It is used as a screen and some decision making. But do not waste your time thinking about small differences in Step scores. Your Step 1 score is what it is. It may change where you apply to within a specialty, but the rule of thumb is and always has been, apply wide and apply broad. Do not over think this.

In the end, interview matters more than anything. Interviews depend on everything else in your application. Your research, your projects, you as a person. Your grades/scores matter, but nobody actually differentiates a 240 from a 242.

So how close do you need to be to residency averages to be competitive? I got a 239. Ortho, ophth, and urology are 240 avg. I figure I'm right at where I need to be for them. Ent is 243 and derm is 244. Am I too low for them? Plastics is 249 so I'm def assuming I'm too far off for that. Also when I ask if I'm competitive, I just mean is my score good enough to get interviews?

 

[VisionaryTics]

So how close do you need to be to residency averages to be competitive? I got a 239. Ortho, ophth, and urology are 240 avg. I figure I'm right at where I need to be for them. Ent is 243 and derm is 244. Am I too low for them? Plastics is 249 so I'm def assuming I'm too far off for that. Also when I ask if I'm competitive, I just mean is my score good enough to get interviews?

154/189 (82%) of US seniors with Step 1s from 230-239 matched into ortho. All things beiing equal, your chances of matching are a few percentage points higher.

10/28 (36%) of US seniors with Step 1s from 230-239 matched into plastics. So you'll get interviews if the rest of your CV is good, but your chances aren't great at matching.

Charting Outcomes in the Match 2011

 

[ijn]

Again, you wouldn't see a change in scores tho bc they jut adjust the distribution. There should about the same # of 240s every year. Perhaps your class is doing better each year but students as a whole are the same or the nbme is just adjusting the scores so it's harder to get a 240 now

There's been a slight shift. Ex. in 2009 9.64% of everyone who applied to residency through the NRMP scored between 241-250, while that same figure increased to 10.44% in 2011. Although I wouldn't start making any sweeping generalizations about tons of average people now getting 240s, and 260 being the new 250. There have always been tons of cases of people who do absolutely average the first two years of medical school ending up with a very respectable STEP 1 score after 6 weeks of intense work.

 

[rocketbooster]

154/189 (82%) of US seniors with Step 1s from 230-239 matched into ortho. All things beiing equal, your chances of matching are a few percentage points higher.

10/28 (36%) of US seniors with Step 1s from 230-239 matched into plastics. So you'll get interviews if the rest of your CV is good, but your chances aren't great at matching.

Charting Outcomes in the Match 2011

Yea that's where I got my #s too. I didn't think those wide ranges would be very accurate to look at tho since a 239 is basically a 240 while a 231 is far from it, yet they are considered the same when looking at the stats you used. That's why I only looked at the averages instead. Too bad we don't really have better stats...

 

[rocketbooster]

There's been a slight shift. Ex. in 2009 9.64% of everyone who applied to residency through the NRMP scored between 241-250, while that same figure increased to 10.44% in 2011. Although I wouldn't start making any sweeping generalizations about tons of average people now getting 240s, and 260 being the new 250. There have always been tons of cases of people who do absolutely average the first two years of medical school ending up with a very respectable STEP 1 score after 6 weeks of intense work.

That's because your module tests include a lot of unnecessary details. Step 1 requires you to know and understand the very basic details for the most part.

Also, really take a look at the difference between your module's test average and say the top 25th percentile. Our tests usually averaged at 85% and the top quartile was like 91% out of 100 questions. There were definitely at least 6 questions that were small details not needed on step 1. So I can see why some in the middle of the class can get 240s. I had a 3.6 after preclinical years but less than 10 multiple choice questions over 2 years kept me from a 4.0. I'm prolly only ranked in top 3rd when 10 questions kept me from #1 ranking haha.

The step 1 is the great equalizer. No bs rounding rules.

 

[ijn]

I wonder about one thing though - the 2012 score report lists the average as 224 and the STD dev as 22. I really don't think the standard deviation is that large, or there's something else going on. For example, if that number is correct then 280 would only be 2.5 standard deviations above the mean. There's something just not right about that. That would mean we should see ~167 of them a year applying through the NRMP. There's no way there's that many floating around. The real standard deviation has to be much smaller. I'd say closer to 18.

 

[StIGMA]

I wonder about one thing though - the 2012 score report lists the average as 224 and the STD dev as 22. I really don't think the standard deviation is that large, or there's something else going on. For example, if that number is correct then 280 would only be 2.5 standard deviations above the mean. There's something just not right about that. That would mean we should see ~167 of them a year applying through the NRMP. There's no way there's that many floating around. The real standard deviation has to be much smaller. I'd say closer to 18.

It's not a normal curve. A large reason for the large std dev is the left side of the curve (<180, 180-190, 190-200, etc.).

 

[swamprat]

Isn't the fact that its a "standardized" test indicate that they adjust or standardize the scores so you can make comparisons between years? I mean not everyone who applies to residency took the test the same year, people take years off, do PhDs etc.

 

[rocketbooster]

I wonder about one thing though - the 2012 score report lists the average as 224 and the STD dev as 22. I really don't think the standard deviation is that large, or there's something else going on. For example, if that number is correct then 280 would only be 2.5 standard deviations above the mean. There's something just not right about that. That would mean we should see ~167 of them a year applying through the NRMP. There's no way there's that many floating around. The real standard deviation has to be much smaller. I'd say closer to 18.

...? Lol, so you think they made up the SD written on the score sheet? That makes no sense haha. It definitely has to be SD=22.

So, 224 = 50th percentile and 246 = 84th percentile. All that tells you is it doesn't take being in the top 10% to match to the most competitive residencies. More realistically, being 80th percentile+ is probably good enough.

 

[rocketbooster]

Isn't the fact that its a "standardized" test indicate that they adjust or standardize the scores so you can make comparisons between years? I mean not everyone who applies to residency took the test the same year, people take years off, do PhDs etc.

Yes. I think the ppl from 2011 or earlier are just trying to defend their scores by saying their 240 is "better" than our 240s haha. Most of their claims are from seeing more 240+s on SDN or possibly within their own school. So what? SDN only includes the obsessive ppl, so if anything I'd expect to see more of these ppl on the forum each year haha. As for increases at individual schools, that's probably only specific to their school while 10 other schools stay the same and 1 other school does worse than before. It all balances out. It must...since this is a standardized test afterall haha. The curves each year are adjusted appropriately in relation to better study resources and so on. So if anything, a 240 may have been like 87% of total questions correct for us but maybe only 84% 5 years ago. Who knows.

 

[hockeydoc14]

I just got my score of 256/88. Does the 88 mean that someone in a previous year with a 90 did better? I'm still confused about this two-digit score

 

[ijn]

...? Lol, so you think they made up the SD written on the score sheet? That makes no sense haha. It definitely has to be SD=22.

So, 224 = 50th percentile and 246 = 84th percentile. All that tells you is it doesn't take being in the top 10% to match to the most competitive residencies. More realistically, being 80th percentile+ is probably good enough.

When you look at the NRMP data there are way less people with 260+ than there are if you assumed a normal distribution with an average of 224 and a std dev of 22. For example, in 2011 there were 547 out of 26880 people with 260+. A std dev of 22 would predict that there'd be 1244 people with 260+.

 

[Dr McSexy]

There's too many other confounding factors basing your assumptions on the charting outcomes alone. As mentioned before: students taking research years, plus your md/phd, leave of abcenses, do the SF match instead, etc.

You could be right, but I do think you have to consider other factors.

 

[WashMe]

Doubtful the case:

1) nbme just shifts the curve even if ppl are doing better. So you'd have to miss less to get that same 240 or whatever,

2) Pathoma was available for 2011 test takers as well. My friend used it last year (June 2011) and told me about it. If you took your test in summer 2010 then maybe you could make that case. But also, they still would just adjust the curve anyway.

I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are. It is 100% possible for every single test taker to score 270+, provided they get enough questions correct. You are not just compared to your cohort and normalized to 224 +/- 22, otherwise the mean score would not change at all from year to year!

 

[WashMe]

Yes. I think the ppl from 2011 or earlier are just trying to defend their scores by saying their 240 is "better" than our 240s haha. Most of their claims are from seeing more 240+s on SDN or possibly within their own school. So what? SDN only includes the obsessive ppl, so if anything I'd expect to see more of these ppl on the forum each year haha. As for increases at individual schools, that's probably only specific to their school while 10 other schools stay the same and 1 other school does worse than before. It all balances out. It must...since this is a standardized test afterall haha. The curves each year are adjusted appropriately in relation to better study resources and so on. So if anything, a 240 may have been like 87% of total questions correct for us but maybe only 84% 5 years ago. Who knows.

I know... that your assertions are *****ic and baseless. Read the NBME website.

 

[ijn]

It's not a normal curve. A large reason for the large std dev is the left side of the curve (<180, 180-190, 190-200, etc.).

How do you take into account skewedness when calculating z-scores or percentiles? Do you multiply the z-score by some coefficient? My statistics class stopped at Gaussian distributions.

This is from the 2011 NRMP data:

Score range, percentile:
260+ -- 97.9
251-260 -- 92.0
241-250 -- 81.6
231-240 -- 67.2
221-230 -- 51.4
211-220 -- 36.5
201-210 -- 21.9
191-200 -- 8.7
181-190 -- 0.92

 

[eNVyKillaBeez]

How do you take into account skewedness when calculating z-scores or percentiles? Do you multiply the z-score by some coefficient? My statistics class stopped at Gaussian distributions.

This is from the 2011 NRMP data:

Score range, percentile:
260+ -- 97.9
251-260 -- 92.0
241-250 -- 81.6
231-240 -- 67.2
221-230 -- 51.4
211-220 -- 36.5
201-210 -- 21.9
191-200 -- 8.7
181-190 -- 0.92

Just curious where you found these stats? I searched for them and couldn't find them.

 

[rocketbooster]

I know... that your assertions are *****ic and baseless. Read the NBME website.

Sorry bro, yours are not any better. You said ppl this year are getting 5-10 pts higher because back when you took it last year you didn't have better resources like Pathoma. Every Pathoma lecture was available last year when you took your test, though. You could have used it, but didn't.

At least my assumptions may be half true...your Pathoma claim is completely wrong. No half truth there.

 

[rocketbooster]

How do you take into account skewedness when calculating z-scores or percentiles? Do you multiply the z-score by some coefficient? My statistics class stopped at Gaussian distributions.

This is from the 2011 NRMP data:

Score range, percentile:
260+ -- 97.9
251-260 -- 92.0
241-250 -- 81.6
231-240 -- 67.2
221-230 -- 51.4
211-220 -- 36.5
201-210 -- 21.9
191-200 -- 8.7
181-190 -- 0.92

Yeah, I see what you're saying now. I agree that the only using the mean +/- SD is not 100% accurate. It does seem to be fairly predictive, though? So for our test just going by the mean and SD, a 246 would be 84 percentile. That info you gave shows 241 at 81.6 and 251 at 92.0. So 246=84 percentile falls pretty close to what you'd expect based on the limited #s they gave us.

Here's another thing I just noticed. That data is for all 2011. The scores reports I saw last year posted on SDN were 222 +/- 22 I believe. Did every 2011 score report say that as well? The ones I saw were from summer 2011. Maybe the fall 2011 ones were lesser/greater? Now ours just said 224 +/- 22...think every score report this year will say that? I'm not sure...maybe you can answer that if you've seen more 2011 score reports over the entire year. If tests late this year fall back down 222, then maybe that'll average out in the end for 2012? I just don't know how often the mean and SD change...every year or every few testing periods?

 

[mimelim]

So how close do you need to be to residency averages to be competitive? I got a 239. Ortho, ophth, and urology are 240 avg. I figure I'm right at where I need to be for them. Ent is 243 and derm is 244. Am I too low for them? Plastics is 249 so I'm def assuming I'm too far off for that. Also when I ask if I'm competitive, I just mean is my score good enough to get interviews?

Short answer: Absolutely. A 239 is good enough to get interviews in Ortho, plastics, ENT, derm, etc. Anyone who tells you otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.

Long answer: "Charting the outcomes" is a good guide for step scores. Yes, their ranges are broad, but it certainly sheds light on the issue. 239 is on the border of two groups. You are in the high end of 230-239, which in 2011 meant 36% match success. Since the range above it (240+) has a higher percent match rate, you can reasonably conclude that you are somewhere above 36% match rate. Trying to figure out the exact number is simply a waste of time since it is meaningless. Remember, 5 applicants in plastic surgery matched with less than a 230 and 30%+ of those with a 260+ didn't match plastics.

What this says is that, yes Step 1 score matters. Of course having a higher score will increase your chances of getting interviews and matching. But, there are many factors that weigh as heavily as your Step 1 score that make those people with <230 more attractive than then 260+ people that didn't match. I can't talk much about plastics outside of the numbers because I'm not in plastics. However, after going through the 2012 match going for Vascular surgery which by most early indicators was only a little less competitive numbers wise as plastics, I have seen this in action. I know someone with ~220s step 1 match at one of the bigger, more attractive programs, I know a couple of people with 250+ that didn't match.

This is conjecture from here on: My impression was that step 1 scores were a filter. It is a guess, but it didn't look like they looked at people below ~230 without a really really good reason. Every person at the 'more/most' competitive programs had a huge expressed interest in the field, either via publication or clinical experience, regardless of Step 1 score. That is what got them interviews. I was also told multiple times, we aren't really looking for the best book studier, we are looking for someone who is going to produce something and fit into our department.

 

[rocketbooster]

Short answer: Absolutely. A 239 is good enough to get interviews in Ortho, plastics, ENT, derm, etc. Anyone who tells you otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.

Long answer: "Charting the outcomes" is a good guide for step scores. Yes, their ranges are broad, but it certainly sheds light on the issue. 239 is on the border of two groups. You are in the high end of 230-239, which in 2011 meant 36% match success. Since the range above it (240+) has a higher percent match rate, you can reasonably conclude that you are somewhere above 36% match rate. Trying to figure out the exact number is simply a waste of time since it is meaningless. Remember, 5 applicants in plastic surgery matched with less than a 230 and 30%+ of those with a 260+ didn't match plastics.

What this says is that, yes Step 1 score matters. Of course having a higher score will increase your chances of getting interviews and matching. But, there are many factors that weigh as heavily as your Step 1 score that make those people with <230 more attractive than then 260+ people that didn't match. I can't talk much about plastics outside of the numbers because I'm not in plastics. However, after going through the 2012 match going for Vascular surgery which by most early indicators was only a little less competitive numbers wise as plastics, I have seen this in action. I know someone with ~220s step 1 match at one of the bigger, more attractive programs, I know a couple of people with 250+ that didn't match.

This is conjecture from here on: My impression was that step 1 scores were a filter. It is a guess, but it didn't look like they looked at people below ~230 without a really really good reason. Every person at the 'more/most' competitive programs had a huge expressed interest in the field, either via publication or clinical experience, regardless of Step 1 score. That is what got them interviews. I was also told multiple times, we aren't really looking for the best book studier, we are looking for someone who is going to produce something and fit into our department.

Gotcha, so basically your Step 1 just puts your foot in the door, i.e. gets you interviews. After that, it's less about #s and more about your resume, impression from your interview, etc. I'm not interested in plastics so I don't care about that haha, I was just using that since it was the hardest residency supposedly.

Here's another interesting graph:

Looks like I have a slightly greater than 40% chance to match plastics as US senior.


On a sidenote, what is your opinion on the importance of Step 2 based on what you saw/heard over this year?

 

[ijn]

Just curious where you found these stats? I searched for them and couldn't find them.

The data isn't directly provided by the NRMP. Someone meticulously took the STEP 1 score cohort data from each specialty in Charting Outcomes 2011 and added it all up to figure out how many students score within each range.

It's true SF match isn't included, but this data samples the vast majority of all residencies in the US.

 

[WashMe]

Sorry bro, yours are not any better. You said ppl this year are getting 5-10 pts higher because back when you took it last year you didn't have better resources like Pathoma. Every Pathoma lecture was available last year when you took your test, though. You could have used it, but didn't.

At least my assumptions may be half true...your Pathoma claim is completely wrong. No half truth there.

My Pathoma claim is not completely wrong... hardly anybody knew about Pathoma last year which is why you don't see it mentioned in the Official 2011 Step I Thread.

Your assumptions are not even half true, but nice try. Basic logic prevails, I'm afraid.

 

[rocketbooster]

My Pathoma claim is not completely wrong... hardly anybody knew about Pathoma last year which is why you don't see it mentioned in the Official 2011 Step I Thread.

Your assumptions are not even half true, but nice try. Basic logic prevails, I'm afraid.

My entire school used it last year. The official 2011 thread probably had 50-100 max ppl posting on it. My school's class last year had 180. 180>100. Looks like more ppl knew about it than not, just based on my school and your SDN 2011 thread. Basic logic prevails, I'm afraid.

And Pathoma was mentioned a lot last year on the Step 1 forum. Many ppl were just still stuck in the old mindset that Goljan RR was mandatory.

Don't throw a tantrum just because you failed to use the best resources available to you. 😉 Anyways, just drop it, sounds like you did fine on Step 1 anyway. Stop complaining about not having as good resources when they were actually available to you as well.

Next.

 

[link2swim06]

My Pathoma claim is not completely wrong... hardly anybody knew about Pathoma last year which is why you don't see it mentioned in the Official 2011 Step I Thread.

Your assumptions are not even half true, but nice try. Basic logic prevails, I'm afraid.

Scores are actually going up, but I don't think pathoma is the primary cause.

Essentially, the average MCAT/GPA goes up every year...which based on a few studies means that better students are going to med school.

Here is a graph of avg step score over the past few years:

Nobody knows how better students + better resources factors into the usmle's curving system. It is a fact scores are on the rise though...

 

[Dwindlin]

Here's another thing I just noticed. That data is for all 2011. The scores reports I saw last year posted on SDN were 222 +/- 22 I believe. Did every 2011 score report say that as well? The ones I saw were from summer 2011. Maybe the fall 2011 ones were lesser/greater? Now ours just said 224 +/- 22...think every score report this year will say that? I'm not sure...maybe you can answer that if you've seen more 2011 score reports over the entire year. If tests late this year fall back down 222, then maybe that'll average out in the end for 2012? I just don't know how often the mean and SD change...every year or every few testing periods?

Those stats are actually from test dates in 2009. 2011 is the year they applied to the match. My test date was in 2011, and should be part of the 2013 charting outcomes.

 

[WashMe]

My entire school used it last year. The official 2011 thread probably had 50-100 max ppl posting on it. My school's class last year had 180. 180>100. Looks like more ppl knew about it than not, just based on my school and your SDN 2011 thread. Basic logic prevails, I'm afraid.

And Pathoma was mentioned a lot last year on the Step 1 forum. Many ppl were just still stuck in the old mindset that Goljan RR was mandatory.

Don't throw a tantrum just because you failed to use the best resources available to you. 😉 Anyways, just drop it, sounds like you did fine on Step 1 anyway. Stop complaining about not having as good resources when they were actually available to you as well.

Next.

you should be, going through life with a blindfold on

 

[LisaFrank]

Based on some of the score reports ppl posted last summer, the average Step 1 score was 222 (+/- 22 I think?). Of the ones that just came out, the average was 224 +/- 22. Does that mean a 239 this year would be equal to a 237 last year?

If you are trying to get a good idea of average Step 1 scores for residencies, do you need to add +2 to every 2011 residency average? So, the ortho average last year was 240, does that mean the one this year (not sure when it gets published) will be 242? On the other hand, I suppose a different number of ppl and thus a different average of Step 1 percentiles applies each year, so it could theoretically drop, stay the same, or go up this year from last year. What do you think?

I took it in April of this year, and my score report said the average was a 222 with a SD of 24

 

[Aclamity]

I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are. It is 100% possible for every single test taker to score 270+, provided they get enough questions correct. You are not just compared to your cohort and normalized to 224 +/- 22, otherwise the mean score would not change at all from year to year!

I have to agree with this. I think it's pretty clear that our scores are NOT based on who takes the test with us, but on the difficulty of our individual test. From what I've been told, the questions in the NBME qbank have been trialed as experimental items on previous years' exams and each question has been curved such that the curve of your exam is based on which questions you receive, rather than on how well the person next to you did. So yes, theoretically everyone on any test date in any year could get a 270 if they answered enough questions correctly. So a 240 in 2011 is definitely comparable to a 240 in 2012.

The obvious caveat is that if there are better resources out there it'll be easier to prep yourself more efficiently/effectively. This is why scores before FA came out were probably leagues lower than scores post-FA, even though students were not any dumber in the pre-FA era. So as someone else pointed out, Pathoma might help some people get over the 240 hump who might not otherwise do so, and may have done the same if it had been as popular in 2011. But honestly, Pathoma doesn't get you the score; it's just another way to teach you the material. In the end it's up to the student to integrate the material and apply it to questions. So whether we use Pathoma, Goljan, Robbins, or Harrisons, we all learn path SOMEHOW, and we're all at a reasonably equal opportunity to do well on step 1.

 

[mimelim]

On a sidenote, what is your opinion on the importance of Step 2 based on what you saw/heard over this year?

Depends entirely on specialty. The general rule of thumb is, equal to or better than Step 1. The one program that published their 2012 match data, Pitt (arguably top program in US based on program alone, not counting how crappy Pittsburgh is XD) showed that the average applicant for VS had a 236 Step 1 and a 244 Step 2 CK. [/end general rules]

Reality: Many people delay CK until the spring. Many people don't send the score to schools until later in the admissions cycle. For the surgical subspecialties (and maybe other), as soon as you leave for the day, or even just for lunch, all of the interviewers huddle in a conference room, throw each applicant's picture up on a projector and then rank people. Thus, since interviews start in late Nov, early Dec, many if not most people will not have a CK score. Since no program seem to care about this, I think one could make the argument that it is of very little importance, unless it is a 'red flag' ie a huge drop below Step 1. My CK dropped a little bit, didn't hurt me at all in terms of getting interviews or matching. I know for a fact that in at least some NSGY programs, it means zero. I know someone with 240+ Step 1 and <200 CK. He said that he was always nervous about it, but nobody commented on it and got 20+ interviews, matched reasonably competitively.

Advice: Don't neglect it. It never hurts to do well on an board exam. Schedule it for a down 2 weeks, or on a light rotation. If you have done reasonably well on your shelves, moderate review for 2 weeks is adequate. I wouldn't want it to hold me back if it counted for even 2% of my application, but certainly don't kill yourself going overboard like most people do and should for Step 1.

 

[rocketbooster]

Depends entirely on specialty. The general rule of thumb is, equal to or better than Step 1. The one program that published their 2012 match data, Pitt (arguably top program in US based on program alone, not counting how crappy Pittsburgh is XD) showed that the average applicant for VS had a 236 Step 1 and a 244 Step 2 CK. [/end general rules]

Reality: Many people delay CK until the spring. Many people don't send the score to schools until later in the admissions cycle. For the surgical subspecialties (and maybe other), as soon as you leave for the day, or even just for lunch, all of the interviewers huddle in a conference room, throw each applicant's picture up on a projector and then rank people. Thus, since interviews start in late Nov, early Dec, many if not most people will not have a CK score. Since no program seem to care about this, I think one could make the argument that it is of very little importance, unless it is a 'red flag' ie a huge drop below Step 1. My CK dropped a little bit, didn't hurt me at all in terms of getting interviews or matching. I know for a fact that in at least some NSGY programs, it means zero. I know someone with 240+ Step 1 and <200 CK. He said that he was always nervous about it, but nobody commented on it and got 20+ interviews, matched reasonably competitively.

Advice: Don't neglect it. It never hurts to do well on an board exam. Schedule it for a down 2 weeks, or on a light rotation. If you have done reasonably well on your shelves, moderate review for 2 weeks is adequate. I wouldn't want it to hold me back if it counted for even 2% of my application, but certainly don't kill yourself going overboard like most people do and should for Step 1.

Haha, so in other words, residency programs tell you it matters as much, if not more, than Step 1 but in reality no one gives a ****? Haha, why don't they just officially say that? lol

I'm thinking about doing ophthamology, which interviews in Oct-Dec and you get matched late January. My school wants us to take our Step 2 in July/August. That would be more than enough time for a surgical subspecialty to get it, wouldn't it?

My Step 1 is 239, and the ophtho average is ~240, so I'm right where I need to be. Would you recommend me delaying my Step 2 then or take it next summer? Would you only want to delay Step 2 if your Step 1 is way above the residency average?

 

[mimelim]

Haha, so in other words, residency programs tell you it matters as much, if not more, than Step 1 but in reality no one gives a ****? Haha, why don't they just officially say that? lol

I'm thinking about doing ophthamology, which interviews in Oct-Dec and you get matched late January. My school wants us to take our Step 2 in July/August. That would be more than enough time for a surgical subspecialty to get it, wouldn't it?

My Step 1 is 239, and the ophtho average is ~240, so I'm right where I need to be. Would you recommend me delaying my Step 2 then or take it next summer? Would you only want to delay Step 2 if your Step 1 is way above the residency average?

I would say that I am in a poor position to advise on Step 2 for Optho. I would talk to recent grads from your school that went into optho, or even the optho residents at your hospital. They would have the best window into what they care about.

As an aside, nobody says that Step 2 is as important or more important than Step 1. Just some people say that you NEED it to be above your Step 1, when in reality while it may matter to some, it really doesn't factor much into decision making for most people. Just a guess, but since Optho is earlier than the other matches, I'd say that Step 2 is even LESS important, but that is just a guess. I'd try the optho forums here, or find people through your school to ask.

 

[drizzt3117]

Yeah, I would take step 2 in your case, and shoot for a significantly higher score than step 1. July/august is fine. People not taking step 1 usually are 20+ pts above the average for their spec.

Keep in mind that the averages are averages for all programs; top programs and those in desirable locations will have higher averages, in some cases much higher. The top rads programs had averages in the 260s while the average step for rads was 241. You'll probably be fine with 239 but you should apply quite broadly (~60 programs or so)

Haha, so in other words, residency programs tell you it matters as much, if not more, than Step 1 but in reality no one gives a ****? Haha, why don't they just officially say that? lol

I'm thinking about doing ophthamology, which interviews in Oct-Dec and you get matched late January. My school wants us to take our Step 2 in July/August. That would be more than enough time for a surgical subspecialty to get it, wouldn't it?

My Step 1 is 239, and the ophtho average is ~240, so I'm right where I need to be. Would you recommend me delaying my Step 2 then or take it next summer? Would you only want to delay Step 2 if your Step 1 is way above the residency average?