Cumulative % on UW

[Vanquish]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi I needed some opinions on my current approach. I have just gone through 90% of Uworld for my first time on timed random unused and have a cumulative score of 75%. My goal is a 260
I am considering what I should do now. Should I complete the rest of the remaining q's and then go through UW a second time? Just for your info the first time I went through I did not take any notes. So should I take detailed notes the 2nd time I go through it? Also I would like anyone's opinion on how much longer I should continue to spend reviewing q's on UW. 1 week? 2 weeks?

Will Appreciate advice from all you step1 veterans.

 

[pardonme]

Hi I needed some opinions on my current approach. I have just gone through 90% of Uworld for my first time on timed random unused and have a cumulative score of 75%. My goal is a 260
I am considering what I should do now. Should I complete the rest of the remaining q's and then go through UW a second time? Just for your info the first time I went through I did not take any notes. So should I take detailed notes the 2nd time I go through it? Also I would like anyone's opinion on how much longer I should continue to spend reviewing q's on UW. 1 week? 2 weeks?

Will Appreciate advice from all you step1 veterans.

i also have a cum score of 75 (timed random)...translated into a 240-255 on several practice NBME that Ive been taking.

I dont think taking detailed notes is that helpful. i would recommend going through the ones you got wrong or getting kaplan qbank

 

[NERDY]

take a NBME test and see how you do

 

[MossPoh]

Anything at or above 70% on first time is pretty smooth sailing and really all about refining your knowledge, eliminating stupid mistakes and investing lots of time into memorizing the stupid details that are generally low yield, but are what set you apart at those higher levels.

Take an NBME and see where you stand. I'd start at 6, 7, 11 or 12 since you score so well to begin with. My guess is that you will crush them, but see one or two areas that are noticeably weaker than the others. Expanded feedback is great to find that out.

 

[tco]

Mine's steadily falling. I'm at 70%.

 

[justaregularmed]

As long as you effectively study the wrong answers I wouldn't put THAT much into your %'s. I mean this is why you're doing the questions in the first place. What I don't understand is using it as an indicator for anything, because the only way I could see that working would be if you didn't bother to learn the wrong answers.


I think it would be safer to say if you're doing really badly then you need to be studying, if your doing well then you're probably benefiting from the esotericness.

What really irks me about UWorld is they differentiate answers by some pretty trivial things (too often) and sometimes they misuse concepts to come to an inappropriate (but theoretically possible) conclusion.

In my humble experience (so far in practice tests) the NBME doesn't play games outside of behavioral science, and I think that is unhelpful.

 

[dozitgetchahi]

As long as you effectively study the wrong answers I wouldn't put THAT much into your %'s. I mean this is why you're doing the questions in the first place. What I don't understand is using it as an indicator for anything, because the only way I could see that working would be if you didn't bother to learn the wrong answers.


I think it would be safer to say if you're doing really badly then you need to be studying, if your doing well then you're probably benefiting from the esotericness.

What really irks me about UWorld is they differentiate answers by some pretty trivial things (too often) and sometimes they misuse concepts to come to an inappropriate (but theoretically possible) conclusion.

In my humble experience (so far in practice tests) the NBME doesn't play games outside of behavioral science, and I think that is unhelpful.

^^^This.

This is why I actually thought usmleconsult was closer to the real format than uworld. Many of the qs on the real thing are just straightforward, normal qs. The tricky ones are often difficult in ways not similar to uworld qs:

- Often times they'll just ask uncomplicated qs about a subject not in FA. If you've happened to encounter the subject before, it's all good. If not, you just guess while eliminating stuff that's obviously wrong.

- Many qs involved a rather pedestrian disease dressed up to look like something else, or a rather simple diagnosis with tons and tons of extraneous detail, labs, and nonsense that you had to filter out to get to the right answer. Only a few uworld qs seemed to simulate these.

- The hard anatomy qs were, shall we say, very "spatial". They heavily depended on your ability to visualize where structures were normally located so you could determine what was going to happen to them in unusual situations. No question bank I used did a very good job of simulating these.

- As opposed to UW, very few qs relied on the sort of trivial distinctions UW emphacises in some of its qs. Most answers had choices that were very easily distinguished from each other. (I can't even remember how many times I wanted to throw my laptop out the window while using UW because of these.)

- I indeed got burned on a few questions because I was playing "spot the trick" rather than simply going for the obvious answer that felt right. On many qs they really aren't trying to trick you - I swear.

 

[justaregularmed]

^^^This.

This is why I actually thought usmleconsult was closer to the real format than uworld. Many of the qs on the real thing are just straightforward, normal qs. The tricky ones are often difficult in ways not similar to uworld qs:

- Often times they'll just ask uncomplicated qs about a subject not in FA. If you've happened to encounter the subject before, it's all good. If not, you just guess while eliminating stuff that's obviously wrong.

- Many qs involved a rather pedestrian disease dressed up to look like something else, or a rather simple diagnosis with tons and tons of extraneous detail, labs, and nonsense that you had to filter out to get to the right answer. Only a few uworld qs seemed to simulate these.

- The hard anatomy qs were, shall we say, very "spatial". They heavily depended on your ability to visualize where structures were normally located so you could determine what was going to happen to them in unusual situations. No question bank I used did a very good job of simulating these.

- As opposed to UW, very few qs relied on the sort of trivial distinctions UW emphacises in some of its qs. Most answers had choices that were very easily distinguished from each other. (I can't even remember how many times I wanted to throw my laptop out the window while using UW because of these.)

- I indeed got burned on a few questions because I was playing "spot the trick" rather than simply going for the obvious answer that felt right. On many qs they really aren't trying to trick you - I swear.

Yep the thing that UWorld has going for it are its explanations. Most of the time they are pretty solid and most of they time they don't leave me wanting for more information. On that regard I think it is better then most other qbanks. I've noticed most of the more terrible questions are also older, hopefully they will cycle out eventually.