Could you theoretically pass the USMLE, using nothing but wikipedia?

[ronaldo23]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Lets say med schools allowed anyone to take the USMLE, and released a list of topics that were covered by the test. Could someone who self-studied this material using only wikipedia pass the test?

 

[silas2642]

Lets say med schools allowed anyone to take the USMLE, and released a list of topics that were covered by the test. Could someone who self-studied this material using only wikipedia pass the test?

I don't know, probably, it's kind of a silly question, but it would definitely take you forever to compile the information. This is why we use First Aid.

 

[Law2Doc]

Lets say med schools allowed anyone to take the USMLE, and released a list of topics that were covered by the test. Could someone who self-studied this material using only wikipedia pass the test?

Wikipedia contains a ton of false info -- that's the danger of having an encyclopedia that anyone can post in. So it wouldn't be smart. And as mentioned, there are much better compilations of info.

 

[CCLCMer]

Lets say med schools allowed anyone to take the USMLE, and released a list of topics that were covered by the test. Could someone who self-studied this material using only wikipedia pass the test?

Just researching the topics on the internet? No question banks or NBME practice tests or review books allowed? Absolutely not. No way, no how.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

I passed the USMLE with no medical training and an UG degree in communications.

 

[tennisball80]

Lets say med schools allowed anyone to take the USMLE, and released a list of topics that were covered by the test. Could someone who self-studied this material using only wikipedia pass the test?

Try it

 

[drizzt3117]

yeah, who needs med school, wikipedia ftw.

 

[Forthegood]

And why is this in Pre-Allo??? Asking premeds about the USMLEs doesn't make much sense. I think it should be moved to hSDN. At least their imaginations are still intact.

 

[qmcat]

IMO, the info on wikipedia, being user edited, sometimes only covers the basics and doesn't cover enough (or sometimes may miss details that you might need to know for the boards).

In short: no, stop dreaming.

 

[Pedsbro]

Another ridiculous thread... FAIL👎

 

[tennisball80]

 

[135892]

You can "theoretically" pass the USMLE without having studied medicine at all

 

[mbe36]

 

[RowaH]

Are you aware of the true meaning of that meme?

 

[mbe36]

No, I just googled "it's a trap". Why, what does it mean? What does "meme" mean?

 

[cpants]

I would say definitely. Sure there are some errors on Wikipedia, but if you memorized the wikipedia entry for every topic on the USMLE (if you could somehow get that information), you would probably be fine for passing the exam.

 

[DrSno]

What does "meme" mean?

The gene equivalent in cultural evolution. Richard Dawkins coined the term in The Selfish Gene.

 

[BlueElmo]

Seriously, there are way too many silly/useless threads like these coming up, even though they are fun to read.

 

[DrWookie]

A couple days after I was born my dad wanted to test my intelligence (to decide if he would keep me) so he gave me the Step 1 exam.

I scored a 270

 

[Kaustikos]

Just researching the topics on the internet? No question banks or NBME practice tests or review books allowed? Absolutely not. No way, no how.

What are the odds? Because I will gladly take that bet. I'll put 1,000 to that "absolute".

 

[niranjan162]

A couple days after I was born my dad wanted to test my intelligence (to decide if he would keep me) so he gave me the Step 1 exam.

I scored a 270

Win

 

[Vido]

I don't know, would a technical patent examiner come up with a theory that could revolutionized the whole science of physics without ever teaching at a university?

Anything is possible. you just have to be little special and massively determined.

 

[MDtoBe1Day]

I would say definitely. Sure there are some errors on Wikipedia, but if you memorized the wikipedia entry for every topic on the USMLE (if you could somehow get that information), you would probably be fine for passing the exam.

If Wiki isn't reliable, then what's the point of it's existence? Rhetorical question btw ha

 

[GoSpursGo]

Theoretically, if you put a monkey in front of a typewriter, it might type up the exact text to The Lord of the Rings.

Yeah, I'm not betting on that either.

 

[cpants]

If Wiki isn't reliable, then what's the point of it's existence? Rhetorical question btw ha

Wikipedia is actually surprisingly reliable and well-researched, especially for things like pathology. If you look at the references at the bottom they are usually medical textbooks and peer-reviewed journal articles.

 

[copingmethods]

Seriously, there are way too many silly/useless threads like these coming up, even though they are fun to read.

From my experience, the OP exclusively makes threads like this.

 

[pianola]

I'm gonna be too poor to buy textbooks in medical school, so I really hope this Wikipedia thing works!!!














....seriously dude.

 

[135892]

No, I just googled "it's a trap". Why, what does it mean? What does "meme" mean?

troubled assets relief program?

I had never heard of it either, but urbandictionary says "Tarp - A female with a penis. She lures you in for sex, but little does the unsuspecting guy know her package is bigger", among other things...

 

[mbe36]

troubled assets relief program?

I had never heard of it either, but urbandictionary says "Tarp - A female with a penis. She lures you in for sex, but little does the unsuspecting guy know her package is bigger", among other things...

O M G The intraweb owned me- that is so NOT what I meant. gulp

 

[mmmcdowe]

In theory, a single roll of toilet paper could last a guy years.


In theory....


I think a better "question" than only using wikipedia is if anyone thinks that someone could pass the USMLE WITHOUT studying for it. I'm honestly inclined to say yes.

 

[Forthegood]

Wikipedia is actually surprisingly reliable and well-researched, especially for things like pathology. If you look at the references at the bottom they are usually medical textbooks and peer-reviewed journal articles.

I have to agree. I mean, at least in science... where it may not be 100% up to date... it is usually at least correct in what it states. Which is better than a lot of other sources...

Besides.. sources are clearly marked... so you can see for yourself what to believe.

 

[Kaustikos]

I have to agree. I mean, at least in science... where it may not be 100% up to date... it is usually at least correct in what it states. Which is better than a lot of other sources...

Besides.. sources are clearly marked... so you can see for yourself what to believe.

Also, let's not forget that textbooks are incorrect sometimes.

 

[MediumDef]

Also, let's not forget that textbooks are incorrect sometimes.

Nature 438, 900-901 (15 December 2005)

Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.



Not being on campus right now I don't have access to the text but if I remember correctly they basically randomly sampled a bunch of scientific topics and found the error rate in Wikipedia to be on par with that in the Encyclopedia Britanicca

 

[deleted202457]

In theory yes, but I feel like this would be extremely hard to find all the info you need. It would be all over the place and you'd have to wade through all kinds of crap you didn't need. I think it would just be easier to study up another way