Class of 2023 Step 1 Scores Possibly may be converted to P/F on Residency Application per USMLE town hall

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Really, in a veil of ignorance scenario you'd treat those as equally unjust? If I didn't know which boat I'd be in and I wanted a surgical specialty, I'd be getting rid of Scenario A for sure. In B you will be on even ground, worst case is that you wasted a bunch of time flashcarding. In A your worst case is to be extremely disadvantaged and at greater risk of SOAPing

I would actually argue the reverse is worse. Spending a bunch of time studying for step, instead of gunning for AOA and research, only to have that taken away, seems more harmful. We know that PDs are not using only Step 1 scores to interview and rank, so having a P is not a huge disadvantage if you have a great step 2, research, AOA.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Yeah, it's going to imminently be pass/fail, I don't see how it can escape any of the same issues plaguing Step 1. But for the few years of interim, I bet people will try and piece together some kind of zanki alternative for CK and then it'll be a race to see who can start CK studying the soonest. Probably gonna see lots of people trying to memorize UpToDate flowcharts in MS1 before they've even studied the diseases being managed at all. Gonna be a real weird time to be a med student.

That already exists; it's called AnKing step 2 V2. It's been in development for some time now, lol.

Yeah, I can see that happening for the incoming class, but like I said earlier, I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing, keep up with the bugs and drugs decks post-step 1, and figure out a winning strategy for step 2 prep in time for M3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
We know that PDs are not using only Step 1 scores to interview
I know exactly why we disagree, lol. That might be true for 245 vs 255. But if you try applying into Plastics, ENT, Ortho etc with either an average board score or a Pass, I think you'd be in for a rude awakening!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
That already exists; it's called AnKing step 2 V2. It's been in development for some time now, lol.
Is it any good? I haven't seen people flashcarding on the wards like I used to constantly see in the preclinical building
 
I know exactly why we disagree, lol. That might be true for 245 vs 255. But if you try applying into Plastics, ENT, Ortho etc with either an average board score or a Pass, I think you'd be in for a rude awakening!

Michigan ENT PD said today no Step 1 cutoff for interview, citing low correlation with clinical ability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Michigan ENT PD said today no Step 1 cutoff for interview, citing low correlation with clinical ability.

That’s literally one PD and it may not even be true. Finding out everyone is applying with a P is definitely not as bad as finding out you are applying with a P and a ton of other people aren’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
That’s literally one PD and it may not even be true. Finding out everyone is applying with a P is definitely not as bad as finding out you are applying with a P and a ton of other people aren’t.

Multiple PDs have something to this effect in a variety of specialties, and I doubt all of them are lying. A P will force PDs to look at the rest of the application and should not duly disadvantage an applicant if the rest is in order.
 
Multiple PDs have something to this effect in a variety of specialties, and I doubt all of them are lying. A P will force PDs to look at the rest of the application and should not duly disadvantage an applicant if the rest is in order.

Then you agree that it’s better if everyone applies with a P.
 
Michigan ENT PD said today no Step 1 cutoff for interview, citing low correlation with clinical ability.
1) I'd love to see the Step 1 distribution of his interviewees. Otherwise that's like hearing HMS and Hopkins espouse how there's more to medical admissions than MCAT and GPA. That may be partly true, and they may preach it to others, but you glance at the MSAR and you know they're not walking the walk.

2) They are indeed lying. Look at the tableau data for surgical specialties. Having a step score in the 220s-230s gets you a match rate in the 50s-70s. Like I said, under a veil of ignorance scenario, being average or Pass among a bunch of 250s is by far the scariest option imo. It shouldn't be, but it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Then you agree that it’s better if everyone applies with a P.

I was actually mistaken because I thought some in c/o 2023 had taken Step but none have. If it’s P/F for 2023, there’s still enough time to pivot and focus on other things, so it’s not the end of the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Is it any good? I haven't seen people flashcarding on the wards like I used to constantly see in the preclinical building

I haven't used it yet, but it's got Dorian (best step 2 deck) and some other great decks. It'll be the gold standard moving forward. It's only a matter of time before we start to see what you described, along with more UWorld on the wards. I predict a sharp decrease in the "Is there anything else?" questions everyone spams and an increase in "I'll see you tomorrow" There just won't be enough time to be a wizard of the wards and a step 2 killer. People will settle for less honors if it means a high step 2. I'm sure this'll drive residents and attendings nuts, lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I was actually mistaken because I thought some in c/o 2023 had taken Step but none have. If it’s P/F for 2023, there’s still enough time to pivot and focus on other things, so it’s not the end of the world.
Nah dude it would indeed be a mixed cohort for c/o 2023. The people who test in summer 2021 as an MS2 will have scores, but the people who test in Spring MS3 in 2022 will (likely) have Pass. Then they'll both apply via ERAS together in Autumn 2022.

I haven't used it yet, but it's got Dorian (best step 2 deck) and some other great decks. It'll be the gold standard moving forward. It's only a matter of time before we start to see what you described, along with more UWorld on the wards. I predict a sharp decrease in the "Is there anything else?" questions everyone spams and an increase in "I'll see you tomorrow" There just won't be enough time to be wizard of the wards and a step 2 killer. People will settle for less honors if it means a high step 2. I'm sure this'll drive residents and attendings nuts, lol
Only 15k cards? What a joke, we'll get that sucker up to 50k cards in no time. I want the entire written UpToDate committed to memory by my sub-I
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Only 15k cards? What a joke, we'll get that sucker up to 50k cards in no time. I want the entire written UpToDate committed to memory by my sub-I

Lol, I've been told the strategy is different for step 2. It's apparently more of a clinical reasoning test and less of a knowledge test, so a question focused approach may be prudent. Ideally, you would have a good base from preclinicals anyway, so I highly doubt we'll see much of an increase in cards, if any.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Glad this is happening. Less incentive to ignore class material just to study for Step 1.

There's an argument floating around that this is unfair to people who have already put in effort into studying for Step 1. To that my response is two-fold:
  • The sunk-cost fallacy is a fallacy
  • Continue to work hard and study hard, for the knowledge that you have gained in studying so hard for Step 1 will help a patient someday
So this really isn't bad at all. I will not be writing any letters petitioning the NBME. If anything, I will use my new found free time to take a deep breath and smell the roses.
 
1) I'd love to see the Step 1 distribution of his interviewees. Otherwise that's like hearing HMS and Hopkins espouse how there's more to medical admissions than MCAT and GPA. That may be partly true, and they may preach it to others, but you glance at the MSAR and you know they're not walking the walk.

2) They are indeed lying. Look at the tableau data for surgical specialties. Having a step score in the 220s-230s gets you a match rate in the 50s-70s. Like I said, under a veil of ignorance scenario, being average or Pass among a bunch of 250s is by far the scariest option imo. It shouldn't be, but it is.
1) I'd love to see the Step 1 distribution of his interviewees. Otherwise that's like hearing HMS and Hopkins espouse how there's more to medical admissions than MCAT and GPA. That may be partly true, and they may preach it to others, but you glance at the MSAR and you know they're not walking the walk.

2) They are indeed lying. Look at the tableau data for surgical specialties. Having a step score in the 220s-230s gets you a match rate in the 50s-70s. Like I said, under a veil of ignorance scenario, being average or Pass among a bunch of 250s is by far the scariest option imo. It shouldn't be, but it is.

For #1, I'll grant you that these elite programs probably do have their pick of high scoring applicants so Step 1 is not as big a differentiator.

#2, I would say looking at the unadjusted match rates is misleading due to so many confounders. I will use ENT as an example. The match percentages are 74, 85, 92% for 230, 240, 250+ applicants respectively.
a. Among candidates with 11+ publications, the match rate is 90, 82, 92, 92 for 210, 230, 240, 250+ applicants respectively.
b. Among AOA members, the match percentages are 90, 91, 94 for 230, 240, 250+ candidates respectively.
c. With Step 2 score of 250+ (<10 points above average), the gap closes to 84, 87, 93 for 230, 240, 250+.

This tells me that for applicants scoring the national average on Step 1 have a great chance to match a competitive specialty if the rest of their house is in order. The reason average and lower scoring applicants have lower match rates (after self-selection) is due to overall weaker application (no AOA, less research).

edit: fixed % based on publications
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lol, I've been told the strategy is different for step 2. It's apparently more of a clinical reasoning test and less of a knowledge test, so a question focused approach may be prudent. Ideally, you would have a good base from preclinicals anyway, so I highly doubt we'll see much of an increase in cards, if any.
Yeah, I glanced at a few papers about CK, and the r-squared is like 0.5x for Step 1, similar magnitude as Step 1 vs MCAT. Must feel totally different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Nah dude it would indeed be a mixed cohort for c/o 2023. The people who test in summer 2021 as an MS2 will have scores, but the people who test in Spring MS3 in 2022 will (likely) have Pass. Then they'll both apply via ERAS together in Autumn 2022.


Only 15k cards? What a joke, we'll get that sucker up to 50k cards in no time. I want the entire written UpToDate committed to memory by my sub-I

I meant, none in the class of 2023 have taken Step 1 as of right now. The most lost is the opportunity cost of studying aimed towards boards for a year. You're right, for the class of 2023, it is better to implement P/F ASAP so people can get priorities in line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Nah dude it would indeed be a mixed cohort for c/o 2023. The people who test in summer 2021 as an MS2 will have scores, but the people who test in Spring MS3 in 2022 will (likely) have Pass. Then they'll both apply via ERAS together in Autumn 2022.

Unless they mask all scores for 2023 like the rumor mill is saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Glad this is happening. Less incentive to ignore class material just to study for Step 1.


1. Why is ignoring class material a bad thing?

2. People will not only continue to ignore class and study for step 1 (to a lesser extent, but still), but they will ignore class and spend less time focusing on all the non-step clinical stuff during M3 in order to study for step 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
For #1, I'll grant you that these elite programs probably do have their pick of high scoring applicants so Step 1 is not as big a differentiator.

#2, I would say looking at the unadjusted match rates is misleading due to so many confounders. I will use ENT as an example. The match percentages are 74, 85, 92% for 230, 240, 250+ applicants respectively.
a. Among candidates with 11+ publications, the match rate is 100% for 210, 230, 240, 250+ applicants.
b. Among AOA members, the match percentages are 90, 91, 94 for 230, 240, 250+ candidates respectively.
c. With Step 2 score of 250+ (<10 points above average), the gap closes to 84, 87, 93 for 230, 240, 250+.

This tells me that for applicants scoring the national average on Step 1 have a great chance to match a competitive specialty if the rest of their house is in order. The reason average and lower scoring applicants have lower match rates (after self-selection) is due to overall weaker application (no AOA, less research).
You can control for those areas using the side bar if you really want to put the time into it. Those examples you are giving are for tiny little groups, for example the group under a is n=1 person in 220s and n=4 people in 230s.

As a counter-example, here is what Ortho looks like after excluding all the folks with few research entries/pubs, with an n of many hundreds

That bottom plot still looking very linear and very ****ing scary if I have a ~230 (or Pass).
 
Last edited:
Unless they mask all scores for 2023 like the rumor mill is saying.

And I agree that the sky is not falling. The people who would have had scores will now adjust their studying approach, contingent on NBME making a decision quickly. With most of Step 1 studying happening during M2 year, a decision made now will give everyone enough time to pivot. Everyone thinks they will get a 250+, but at the end of the day, the mean is still 230.
 
You can control for those areas using the side bar if you really want to put the time into it. Those examples you are giving are for tiny little groups, for example the group under a is n=1 person in 220s and n=4 people in 230s.

As a counter-example, here is what Ortho looks like after excluding all the folks with few research entries/pubs, with an n of many hundreds

That bottom plot still looking very linear and very ****ing scary if I have a 230 (or Pass).

For ortho, the match % is 51, 71, 76, 87 for 220, 230, 240, 250+ respectively.

1. Among AOA members, 80, 90, 89, 94%.
2. Among those with 11+ pubs (11.5 average for matched applicants), the % are 61, 81, 80, 90.
3. Having a Step 2 >250 gives % of 61, 81, 82, 89.

If an ortho applicant scores the national average and they have a good application otherwise, they're fine.
 
For ortho, the match % is 51, 71, 76, 87 for 220, 230, 240, 250+ respectively.

1. Among AOA members, 80, 90, 89, 94%.
2. Among those with 11+ pubs (11.5 average for matched applicants), the % are 61, 81, 80, 90.
3. Having a Step 2 >250 gives % of 61, 81, 82, 89.

If an ortho applicant scores the national average and they have a good application otherwise, they're fine.
Again man I don't think you can make those assessments on these tiny little groups, like that 80% value for 220s AOA members is based on only ~10 people again. Any data looks good when you torture it long enough, and these examples you're looking at are war crimes!

Try flipping it and reading the inverse, where it's still n>100 in every bin.

When looking at exclusively non-AOA members (so that n>100 in all bins) the Step 1 pattern persists, just with a drop in odds across all bins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There's an argument floating around that this is unfair to people who have already put in effort into studying for Step 1. To that my response is two-fold:
  • The sunk-cost fallacy is a fallacy
  • Continue to work hard and study hard, for the knowledge that you have gained in studying so hard for Step 1 will help a patient someday

The sunk cost fallacy is when someone keeps investing in something they're not satisfied with just because they previously invested in it. This concept has virtually no relevance to what students are actually frustrated about right now: being blindsided by a new policy that renders their first-year board prep largely worthless.

In response to your second point, much of the content covered by Step 1 isn't really all that applicable to clinical practice. You don't need to know the rate-limiting step of the urea cycle to be an effective physician.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
The sunk cost fallacy is when someone keeps investing in something they're not satisfied with just because they previously invested in it. This concept has virtually no relevance to what students are actually frustrated about right now: being blindsided by a new policy that renders their first-year board prep largely worthless.

In response to your second point, much of the content covered by Step 1 isn't really all that applicable to clinical practice. You don't need to know the rate-limiting step of the urea cycle to be an effective physician.
Excuse me sir every person I've ever been impressed with on the wards has known every biochem pathway in First Aid. After all, deep understanding of this kind of material is the main thing separating us from midlevels.

/s
 
  • Like
  • Dislike
Reactions: 2 users
Again man I don't think you can make those assessments on these tiny little groups, like that 80% value for 220s AOA members is based on only ~10 people again. Any data looks good when you torture it long enough, and these examples you're looking at are war crimes!

Try flipping it and reading the inverse, where it's still n>100 in every bin.

When looking at exclusively non-AOA members (so that n>100 in all bins) the Step 1 pattern persists, just with a drop in odds across all bins.

These small numbers tell me that if you can achieve those benchmarks, you’re fine. They also tell me that there is a strong correlation between step score and achieving AOA and having above average research. A multivariate model will show that Step 1 is not as important as we think.
 
These small numbers tell me that if you can achieve those benchmarks, you’re fine. They also tell me that there is a strong correlation between step score and achieving AOA and having above average research. A multivariate model will show that Step 1 is not as important as we think.
Sure, but that means we're only talking about the fates of 10/300 people. I def wouldn't want my residency match to hinge on being that kind of an outlier.

AOA is messy because not all schools do it, and the ones that do all use different criteria, oftentimes Step 1 being one of those criteria. Not to mention that clinical grades are always involved, and are also highly variable and also highly dependent on NBMEs in most places. It's probably the single worst metric to try and use in this case.

But, you can also just look directly at NRMP survey results instead of trying to guesstimate whether Step 1 trumps the rest. To keep going with our Ortho example it's certainly kicking the crap out of research or AOA.
 
Again man I don't think you can make those assessments on these tiny little groups, like that 80% value for 220s AOA members is based on only ~10 people again. Any data looks good when you torture it long enough, and these examples you're looking at are war crimes!

Try flipping it and reading the inverse, where it's still n>100 in every bin.

When looking at exclusively non-AOA members (so that n>100 in all bins) the Step 1 pattern persists, just with a drop in odds across all bins.

So for 230-239 the match rate is 74%, 240-249, it’s 75%, 250+ is 79%. Where is this huge advantage again? I think a big contributor to the relationship between Step 1 and match percentage can be explained by the fact that most people who have a high Step score tend to get a lot of honors and as a result AOA. Looking at any of the specialty spreadsheets corroborates this. The advantage of Step 1 in isolation ends after a threshold is reached.
 
Don’t get me wrong, Step 1 is a factor in getting interviews as we see in the PD survey. I would argue that most places use it as a threshold to dole out interviews. Below the cutoff, which is significantly below the specialty average (barring select programs), Step 1 has outsized impact. Above the threshold (achievable for most), the applications are looked at holistically and Step 1 is devalued.
 
So for 230-239 the match rate is 74%, 240-249, it’s 75%, 250+ is 79%. Where is this huge advantage again? I think the relationship between Step 1 and match percent can be explained by the fact that most people who get lots of honors also had a high Step score. Looking at any of the specialty spreadsheets corroborates this. The advantage of Step 1 in isolation ends after a threshold is reached.

Agreed, and the threshold is much lower than the specialty specific average, which the exception of select programs. This line of reasoning has been said time and again by PDs, yet medical students never believe them.

I think the truth is closer to - be the type of applicant who gets a high Step 1 because that applicant also is much more likely to have every other part of their app on lock.
 
So for 230-239 the match rate is 74%, 240-249, it’s 75%, 250+ is 79%. Where is this huge advantage again? I think a big contributor to the relationship between Step 1 and match percentage can be explained by the fact that most people who have a high Step score tend to get a lot of honors and as a result AOA. Looking at any of the specialty spreadsheets corroborates this. The advantage of Step 1 in isolation ends after a threshold is reached.
The higher end received the brunt of the reduction from excluding AOA folks; a randomly selected AOA individual is more likely to have a higher score and to match since it's really a composite marker of whatever that school values (boards, shelves, evals, whatever).

When you look at the research-controlled one which I think is a much cleaner way to exclude crappy apps, it's still a big difference

220s 61%
230s 73%
240s 78%
250s 90%

I'd def be a lot more nervous at one end of that than the other. But that's just me, if someone still feels confident with their 225-235 because they checked their other boxes better, more power to them.
 
Don’t get me wrong, Step 1 is a factor in getting interviews as we see in the PD survey. I would argue that most places use it as a threshold to dole out interviews. Below the cutoff, which is significantly below the specialty average (barring select programs), Step 1 has outsized impact. Above the threshold (achievable for most), the applications are looked at holistically and Step 1 is devalued.
There's data out there about step screening too, and it's not just select elite programs, literally half of them start their screens at 230.

screens.png


Probably explains why the biggest stepoff is from 230s to 220s, and definitely a reason to be scared about how a Pass is perceived compared to strong numerical scores.
 
The higher end received the brunt of the reduction from excluding AOA folks; a randomly selected AOA individual is more likely to have a higher score and to match since it's really a composite marker of whatever that school values (boards, shelves, evals, whatever).

When you look at the research-controlled one which I think is a much cleaner way to exclude crappy apps, it's still a big difference

220s 61%
230s 73%
240s 78%
250s 90%

I'd def be a lot more nervous at one end of that than the other. But that's just me, if someone still feels confident with their 225-235 because they checked their other boxes better, more power to them.
I'd also wonder if many of the successful 220-230 matches also had some other hook, like attending a top program, having excellent letters etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'd also wonder if many of the successful 220-230 matches also had some other hook, like attending a top program, having excellent letters etc.
Also many of the low end scorers may have had good reasons to feel confident about a home match. Much less scary to apply with average boards if you've already heard off-the-record that they'd like to keep you around
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The higher end received the brunt of the reduction from excluding AOA folks; a randomly selected AOA individual is more likely to have a higher score and to match since it's really a composite marker of whatever that school values (boards, shelves, evals, whatever).

When you look at the research-controlled one which I think is a much cleaner way to exclude crappy apps, it's still a big difference

220s 61%
230s 73%
240s 78%
250s 90%

I'd def be a lot more nervous at one end of that than the other. But that's just me, if someone still feels confident with their 225-235 because they checked their other boxes better, more power to them.

Again, for Ortho, having 11+ publications, all else being equal, the match % is 61, 81, 80, 90% for 220s, 230s, 240s, 250+ (all n>90) respectively. Yes, Step 1 matters a lot if you get <230 and much less when you're >230. This fits the model of Step 1 being a filter for programs to use, with a threshold ~230 for Ortho. If you pass the threshold, and tick all the other boxes, you are fine. The discrepancy lies in the fact that higher scorers are more likely to tick more boxes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There's data out there about step screening too, and it's not just select elite programs, literally half of them start their screens at 230.

View attachment 309915

Probably explains why the biggest stepoff is from 230s to 220s, and definitely a reason to be scared about how a Pass is perceived compared to strong numerical scores.

A Pass will tell programs to filter on other metrics, namely Step 2. What kind of program would look at a Pass and think that's a 195 or even a 230? They're more likely to look at the rest of the application, from which you could probably predict what their Step 1 would have been.
 
Again, for Ortho, having 11+ publications, all else being equal, the match % is 61, 81, 80, 90% for 220s, 230s, 240s, 250+ (all n>90) respectively. Yes, Step 1 matters a lot if you get <230 and much less when you're >230. This fits the model of Step 1 being a filter for programs to use, with a threshold ~230 for Ortho. If you pass the threshold, and tick all the other boxes, you are fine. The discrepancy lies in the fact that higher scorers are more likely to tick more boxes.
Try only subtracting out the people with 0 or few, since 11+ papers is mostly gonna be people with research years or additional degrees. When your data only tells the story you want while examining outliers, then it's probably not the right story. That a research year helps compensate for average scores is the real story there, imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
A Pass will tell programs to filter on other metrics, namely Step 2. What kind of program would look at a Pass and think that's a 195 or even a 230? They're more likely to look at the rest of the application, from which you could probably predict what their Step 1 would have been.
Au contraire! I think a reasomable program could, should, and would see a 250 as a 250 and a Pass as potentially anything. If they really want to be fair theyll ignore this and judge the rest. But if they're flawed normal human beans, theyll inevitably give some favoritism to the former. It's simply what makes sense for them to do as a self interested actor, just like for us we would all display a 250 instead of a Pass if we had the choice.
 
Try only subtracting out the people with 0 or few, since 11+ papers is mostly gonna be people with research years or additional degrees. When your data only tells the story you want while examining outliers, then it's probably not the right story. That a research year helps compensate for average scores is the real story there, imo.

Even with >3 publications, an ortho applicant with AOA and 250+ still has an 87% chance of matching and for 240-249 it’s 77%. So yeah, Step 1 is still important as you would expect but it is no where near the shoe-in people think it is. Students with a 230-249 with AOA have a 91% chance of getting in in comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
What happened when Steps were all pass/fail? People still matched in competitive specialties right? Why would this be different if all Steps go pass/fail now?
Not only did people match competitive specialties before Step was king, they did so in appropriate proportions, with little to no skew in favor of Top 40 NIH schools.

Why everyone thinks the sky is falling and brand name determines your fate, is beyond me.
 
Even with >3 publications, an ortho applicant with AOA and 250+ still has an 87% chance of matching and for 240-249 it’s 77%. So yeah, Step 1 is still important as you would expect but it is no where near the shoe-in people think it is. Students with a 230-249 with AOA have a 91% chance of getting in in comparison.
Def not a shoo in for anyone. I agree high Step isn't the end-all be-all, but I'd feel really bad for an equally bright Pass trying to compete against them.
 
Not only did people match competitive specialties before Step was king, they did so in appropriate proportions, with little to no skew in favor of Top 40 NIH schools.

Why everyone thinks the sky is falling and brand name determines your fate, is beyond me.

This is super controversial and SDN will angrily oust me but thinking about this theoretically. Given the way NBME has handled the Steps regarding covid 19 so far (e.g. remote testing, short tests etc.) can the NBME simply convert the Steps to P/F now rather than delaying the inevitable for few years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This is super controversial and SDN will angrily oust me but thinking about this theoretically. Given the way NBME has handled the Steps regarding covid 19 so far (e.g. remote testing, short tests etc.) can the NBME simply convert the Steps to P/F now rather than delaying the inevitable for few years?
Apparently there are stakeholders that cant accommodate anything sooner than 2022

Could be state legislatures need to adjust things to allow p/f, I think one of the Carmody blog posts described how the NBME can only recommend a passing score threshold, state congress has to then approve it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Not only did people match competitive specialties before Step was king, they did so in appropriate proportions, with little to no skew in favor of Top 40 NIH schools.

Why everyone thinks the sky is falling and brand name determines your fate, is beyond me.

Sure, the problem being that there is no way to know if you will be one who matches.

If I am from a trash tier school and my application consists of basically 1 pub. How am I supposed to know if I am a good ortho applicant? My sub-I's?
 
Sure, the problem being that there is no way to know if you will be one who matches.

If I am from a trash tier school and my application consists of basically 1 pub. How am I supposed to know if I am a good ortho applicant? My sub-I's?
I mean yeah, sure. One of the recent projects I was on included a survey of ortho programs to find out how many people were either home matches or matched after doing an audition, versus the number matching to an unaffiliated program. Turns out it's a majority that land at home or an away. So it's already becoming a norm and I see no issue with that. I can't imagine a better way to assess whether you want to train/work with someone for many years, than to test them out for an entire month.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Glad this is happening. Less incentive to ignore class material just to study for Step 1.

There's an argument floating around that this is unfair to people who have already put in effort into studying for Step 1. To that my response is two-fold:
  • The sunk-cost fallacy is a fallacy
  • Continue to work hard and study hard, for the knowledge that you have gained in studying so hard for Step 1 will help a patient someday
So this really isn't bad at all. I will not be writing any letters petitioning the NBME. If anything, I will use my new found free time to take a deep breath and smell the roses.

Nobody was stopping you from smelling the roses in the first place...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Try only subtracting out the people with 0 or few, since 11+ papers is mostly gonna be people with research years or additional degrees. When your data only tells the story you want while examining outliers, then it's probably not the right story. That a research year helps compensate for average scores is the real story there, imo.

I might be mistaken, but I believe publications here refer to pubs, abstracts, presentations. Ortho average was ~12 in 2018.
 
I might be mistaken, but I believe publications here refer to pubs, abstracts, presentations. Ortho average was ~12 in 2018.
I think that is mistaken, because the numbers for All vs 11+ are cut down by a lot more than half

Like for 250+, it cuts from 1302 --> 270 and I would've expected them to be the least reduced
 
I think that is mistaken, because the numbers for All vs 11+ are cut down by a lot more than half

Like for 250+, it cuts from 1302 --> 270 and I would've expected them to be the least reduced

I think it does include presentations. If you look at anesthesia for example, charting outcomes says ~450 people have >5 “publications” (they make that mistake there at well) even though that is half the cohort applying and the median is 4.5. If you go to the interactive one and check only 2018, 2017 cohort it adds up to 450 as well. Otherwise, there’s no way that many anesthesia applicants have that many actual pubs. Residencyexplorer showed at most 5% had >5 actual pubs even at places like Stanford.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top