Do the MCAT's and USMLE predict how good a physician one will be?

[Kappy1]

---

Members do not see this ad.

The MCAT's are supposed to predict how well a student will do during first year med school and the step exams. However, if you look at the statistics for last years USMLE step I 95% of students pass the first time around from US allopathic schools 77% passed the first time around 71% pass from schools abroud the first time around. http://www.usmle.org/scores/2006perf.htm

Most students who are in any kind of medical program pass the boards Step I the first time around. Obviously, the statistics required to attend allopathic, osteopathic, and abroud schools are very different but, for most students these stats seem not to make any difference because most pass the USMLE step one anyhow. The statistics for the other step exams are better from all schools. Which means that most people in a medical program can practice medicine in the US and most do.

Do these standarized tests actually produce the best physicans? Besides being personal, compassionate, trustworthy etc... a physician is presented with symptoms, a patient history, and has to decide how to proceed whether it is a test, medication, course of treatment, procedure, series of tests, or nothing. In the real world there aren't 4-11 answer choices and pick best one. There are no answers that are close to the right one that are staring you in the face. Yes there are diseases that present similarly and doctors can and do make mistakes with these senerio's no matter what a physician scored on his boards. As a physician you have no answers in front (you may look them up or know where to find them) of you and you have to find a course of treatment.

Shouldn't these tests be more true to life being problem solving tests. The other aspects of being a doctor I think are very hard to test like how compassionate someone is or how personal someone is, but if there is a way to test that it should be tested as well. Studies have shown (when I find a link for it I will post it) that the best doctors are not the ones with the highest USMLE score or the highest GPA in medical school but the average student. That being the case why are schools and medical community hooked on these scores?

I did well on my MCAT's and I had a high GPA.

 

[HarveyCushing]

I think with so many people trying to get into medical school, you will need some sort of leveler to compare people. That is where standardized tests come in. Standardized tests while not perfect, give adcoms the security of comparing people who don't come from the same institutions. Ultimately schools will take those who are more qualified over those who aren't. Is this the best way to pick future physicians. No. But as of now there really isn't a better format available.

 

[spicedmanna]

I think this topic has been discussed before with some passion. I personally believe that standardized tests are good for testing and ensuring competence, and for making the screening process easier for the folks doing the screening, but I think it's usefulness generally ends there. In my opinion, these tests just aren't robust enough to predict anything beyond that.

Why are they hooked on these tests? Well, they give a quick and dirty statistic by which to draw some lines and do some comparisons. In other words, it makes the screening process easier. It doesn't mean that higher scorers are necessarily better physicians, it just gives folks a convenient and largely objective metric in which to evaluate applicants. It was never meant to be used in isolation, or as the sole factor, but considered in context of a variety of factors; these tests represent one of many variables used in the screening process.

 

[Kappy1]

When it comes residancy certian specialties will be off limits do to these scores. Yes, you have LOR's and a deans letters. But if you don't get within a certain range you'll be limitted. For example (not sure if true but you'll get the idea) to get into opthomology you may have to score a 240 on step I. There has to be a way to incoporate all aspects of being a physician in these exams because that should be the goal of medical school and residency.

 

[spicedmanna]

Make the standardized non-multiple choice geered at problem solving.

The current tests are good enough for what they are designed for. There's no reason to shift to a different paradigm. Multiple choice tests are good for generating standardized statistics, something that is very useful in drawing lines and making quick judgments in context of other variables. Making a test that is non-multiple choice, i.e., short answer and/or essay, will invariably introduce more subjectivity to the process, something that is undesirable and introduces more potential for disagreement about the statistics generated from them, as it then depends on the judgment of the grader. Also, the MCAT and the medical boards do test problem-solving skills. I would say that this is about 50% of the test.

I think a problem arises when people try to make more out of these test than what they were designed for. They don't say much beyond providing ease to the screening process and ensuring competence.

 

[spicedmanna]

When it comes residancy certian specialties will be off limits do to these scores. Yes, you have LOR's and a deans letters. But if you don't get within a certain range you'll be limitted. For example (not sure if true but you'll get the idea) to get into opthomology you may have to score a 240 on step I. There has to be a way to incoporate all aspects of being a physician in these exams because that should be the goal of medical school and residency.

Pssht. I don't think there are hard and fast ranges for specialties. I don't think it's as simple as that. Yes, I think it is true that you need to perform better to be more competitive for certain residencies, but the other factors can be very compelling, too. I'm thinking that you just need to get your foot into the door, then the rest depends a lot on your softer factors. For example, if you take the time to get to know the residency directors during a particular rotation and really go out of your way to nurture your connection with the location and the folks there, I would guess that you are really setting yourself up for success when you try to match there when the time comes for you do that.

With that said, I do believe that the boards are much better tests than the MCAT. From what I've read, they are basically clinical scenarios that test your basic science knowledge and problem-solving skills.

 

[bwells46]

In short, my answer is an emphatic "No".

 

[Kappy1]

My dad is an interviewer for a residancy program and applicants with good LOR's and deans letters are turned down every year in favor of applicants with higher board scores. He told me that is the major criteria is the USMLE because most students have good LOR's and good Dean's letters and during rotations most students become friendly and connected with residency directors. The bottom line is you can be friendly have connections all you want but, you will never be accepted with a low score on the USMLE that is out of the certain range for the residancy. By passing it you a have shown your competence.

 

[DiverDoc]

As others have stated, it is a basis for comparing numerous applicants. But it is a single test and thats why they also look at GPA and EC's. GPA is an indicator of how consistant one is throughout their undergrad career, how one performed over the semesters versus a single great/bad MCAT.

 

[spicedmanna]

My dad is an interviewer for a residancy program and applicants with good LOR's and deans letters are turned down every year in favor of applicants with higher board scores. He told me that is the major criteria is the USMLE because most students have good LOR's and good Dean's letters and during rotations and most students become friendly and connected with residency directors. The bottom line is you can be friendly have connections all you want but, you will never be accepted with a low score on the USMLE that is out of the certain range for the residancy. By passing it you a have shown your competence.

Okay, then score better. It's then another hoop that must be jumped in order to reach a certain place. Do what you can in preparation to jump it to reach that place. Anyway, I think each RD and each location is going to evaluate people differently.

I don't think creating a "better" test is really going to do anything for you. Basically, if you eliminate the quick and dirty metric, they'll just come up with another one.

 

[CommanderRiker]

Yes, the M.C.A.T., U.S.M.L.E., and C.O.M.L.E.X. are all good indicators.

 

[bwells46]

My dad is an interviewer for a residancy program and applicants with good LOR's and deans letters are turned down every year in favor of applicants with higher board scores. He told me that is the major criteria is the USMLE because most students have good LOR's and good Dean's letters and during rotations most students become friendly and connected with residency directors. The bottom line is you can be friendly have connections all you want but, you will never be accepted with a low score on the USMLE that is out of the certain range for the residancy. By passing it you a have shown your competence.

Too bad this isn't always true for med school. I've known some people with very marginal GPAs and MCAT scores get into med school because their dad was the golf buddy of the head of the admissions committee.

 

[spicedmanna]

Yes, the M.C.A.T., U.S.M.L.E., and C.O.M.L.E.X. are all good indicators.

Oh, look, the troll has arrived. It's likely the end of all useful conversation on this t. h. r. e. a. d. 🙄

 

[Kappy1]

Too bad this isn't always true for med school. I've known some people with very marginal GPAs and MCAT scores get into med school because their dad was the golf buddy of the head of the admissions committee.

Agreed that happens always in life many times it is just who you know.

 

[Kappy1]

Okay, then score better. It's then another hoop that must be jumped in order to reach a certain place. Do what you can in preparation to jump it to reach that place. Anyway, I think each RD and each location is going to evaluate people differently.

I don't think creating a "better" test is really going to do anything for you. Basically, if you eliminate the quick and dirty metric, they'll just come up with another one.

I don't believe you can score better if you pass the USMLE's. I think you can only retake it if you fail. ( I may be wrong about that). Any one know? The USMLE is a competency test not a test on how good a physician you are. When that should be the goal. Studies have found the characteristics that make a great physician (When I find the links I'll post them) make the test geared to those criteria.

 

[spicedmanna]

I don't believe you can score better if you pass the USMLE's. I think you can only retake it if you fail. ( I may be wrong about that). Any one know? The USMLE is a competency test not a test on how good a physician you are. When that should be the goal.

My understanding is that if you pass, you can't take it again. But that's not what I meant. What I meant to say was that you should be prepared to do as well as you can on it when you take it.

 

[Kappy1]

My understanding is that if you pass, you can't take it again. But that's not what I meant. What I meant to say was that you should be prepared to do as well as you can on it when you take it.

But it is then a one shot deal. you have a bad day even if you studied hard you have closed the door on many residency oppertunites. Which is the underling problem. The medical community puts too much faith into these exams that we will need to be taking as long as we are all physicians. Every seven years for a sub-specialty and every 10 years for a regular specialty we will be back taking these standardized tests.

 

[JonnyG]

But it is then a one shot deal. you have a bad day you have closed the door on many residencies.

NOw you know why people study so hard for the tests.

 

[spicedmanna]

Every seven years for a sub-specialty and every 10 years for a regular specialty we will be back taking these standardized tests.

True. However, keep in mind that the pass rate of these specialty boards (as opposed to the licensing boards) tend be consistantly something like 90%. These specialty boards are basically only used to test for competence and nothing else; you just need to pass them and nobody really cares about the numbers generated from them.

 

[VALSALVA]

What is the definition of good physician???? Is it:

1. One who is empathetic, caring, and dedicated
2. Cerebral, excellent problem solver, the doctor other doctors call for an opinion or "curbside consult"
3. Excellent researcher, detail oriented, doing things in the lab most of us couldn't dream of understanding, working on disease cures.

Obviously, there is a long continuum and each physician falls somewhere in between the extremes. Lets face it, if your definition of "good physician" is #2 or #3, then chances are, they did well on standardized tests...because those are the types of people who ALWAYS do well on standardized tests. Period. I think you can be a good physician if you have a lot of #1 and enough of #2 or #3...as long as you understand your niche and what you have to offer your future patients (society). After all, the medical boards are pass/fail as are the preclinical and clinical years.

If your definition lies closer to #1, then standardized tests go out the window. Oh cares, right? Obviously, there are many doctors who have #1 and #2 or #1 and #3. I guess my point is that those who are working on cancer cures probably didn't get 24's on the MCAT.

It all goes back to my original question? What does "good" mean???

 

[Dr JPH]

The MCAT's are supposed to predict how well a student will do during first year med school and the step exams. However, if you look at the statistics for last years USMLE step I 95% of students pass the first time around from US allopathic schools 77% passed the first time around 71% pass from schools abroud the first time around. http://www.usmle.org/scores/2006perf.htm

Most students who are in any kind of medical program pass the boards Step I the first time around. Obviously, the statistics required to attend allopathic, osteopathic, and abroud schools are very different but, for most students these stats seem not to make any difference because most pass the USMLE step one anyhow. The statistics for the other step exams are better from all schools. Which means that most people in a medical program can practice medicine in the US and most do.

Do these standarized tests actually produce the best physicans? Besides being personal, compassionate, trustworthy etc... a physician is presented with symptoms, a patient history, and has to decide how to proceed whether it is a test, medication, course of treatment, procedure, series of tests, or nothing. In the real world there aren't 4-11 answer choices and pick best one. There are no answers that are close to the right one that are staring you in the face. Yes there are diseases that present similarly and doctors can and do make mistakes with these senerio's no matter what a physician scored on his boards. As a physician you have no answers in front (you may look them up or know where to find them) of you and you have to find a course of treatment.

Shouldn't these tests be more true to life being problem solving tests. The other aspects of being a doctor I think are very hard to test like how compassionate someone is or how personal someone is, but if there is a way to test that it should be tested as well. Studies have shown (when I find a link for it I will post it) that the best doctors are not the ones with the highest USMLE score or the highest GPA in medical school but the average student. That being the case why are schools and medical community hooked on these scores?

I did well on my MCAT's and I had a high GPA.

You need at least a 24 on your MCAT or your patients will die.

🙄

MCAT scores couldnt predict the 'quality' of a physician no more than SAT scores could predict how well you played beer pong in college.

It might tell you how well you prepare for an exam though.

 

[Kappy1]

What is the definition of good physician???? Is it:

1. One who is empathetic, caring, and dedicated
2. Cerebral, excellent problem solver, the doctor other doctors call for an opinion or "curbside consult"
3. Excellent researcher, detail oriented, doing things in the lab most of us couldn't dream of understanding, working on disease cures.

Obviously, there is a long continuum and each physician falls somewhere in between the extremes. Lets face it, if your definition of "good physician" is #2 or #3, then chances are, they did well on standardized tests...because those are the types of people who ALWAYS do well on standardized tests. Period. I think you can be a good physician if you have a lot of #1 and enough of #2 or #3...as long as you understand your niche and what you have to offer your future patients (society). After all, the medical boards are pass/fail as are the preclinical and clinical years.

If your definition lies closer to #1, then standardized tests go out the window. Oh cares, right? Obviously, there are many doctors who have #1 and #2 or #1 and #3. I guess my point is that those who are working on cancer cures probably didn't get 24's on the MCAT.

It all goes back to my original question? What does "good" mean???

To me "good" is definetly #1 and some #2. No matter what field of Medicine you practice in you will always be asking colleagues for advice on patients. Usually it is in the form of a conference where doctors discuss paitient cases and try to learn from each other treament options or new ways to test for diseases etc.... Three is nice if you are able to. However, I find that most doctors are not doing research. You do have the MD/PHD and DO/PHD and regular PHD's doing research. Yes, you occationally have regular MD's or DO's doing research but they are far and few between. Most are seeing patients and are enjoying themselves doing it and hating the insurance paper work that comes with it. For many they may like to ideally do research but there are only 24 hours in a day and after seeing patients don't have time for research. You're right most of the physician scientists probably didn't get a 24, but most doctors don't do that anyway. Get rid of the standardized testing in medicine. Focous on what make physicians great, not just on knowing the material. Becuase everyone in the field is expected to do that. If a physician is not keeping up to date than he or she is doing a tremedous disservice to his or her patients who are expecting top notch care. Is there some else out there that agree's with me?

 

[Dr JPH]

To me "good" is definetly #1 and some #2. No matter what field of Medicine you practice in you will always be asking colleagues for advice on patients. Usually it is in the form of a conference where doctors discuss paitient cases and try to learn from each other treament options or new ways to test for diseases etc.... Three is nice if you are able to. However, I find that most doctors are not doing research. You do have the MD/PHD and DO/PHD and regular PHD's doing research. Yes, you occationally have regular MD's or DO's doing research but they are far and few between. Most are seeing patients and are enjoying themselves doing it and hating the insurance paper work that comes with it. For many they may like to ideally do research but there are only 24 hours in a day and after seeing patients don't have time for research. You're right most of the physician scientists probably didn't get a 24, but most doctors don't do that anyway. Get rid of the standardized testing in medicine. Focous on what make physicians great, not just on knowing the material. Becuase everyone in the field is expected to do that. If a physician is not keeping up to date than he or she is doing a tremedous disservice to his or her patients who are expecting top notch care. Is there some else out there that agree's with me?

I agree with you. But I still dont know what it has to do with MCATs

 

[StringerBell]

You need at least a 24 on your MCAT or your patients will die.

Love it!
😆

My two cents:
I'm not going to go on a rant about this subject, but there needs to be measurables. Intangibles such as compassion and attentiveness are of course desireable in a physician - but problem solving, critical thinking, integration of knowledge and available data are more than desireable...they are essential. The MCAT and the USMLE give some working data points...they can open doors for an applicant, and they can also close them.

If I may make (another horrible) analogy, in professional sports there are measurables - 40 yd dash time, vertical leap, mph on a pitcher's fastball. They can open doors for an athlete, and they can close them. But another desireable, and immeasurable, quality is "heart." It's hard to define, let alone quantify. And sometimes, minus all the measurables, heart can make a difference. Jerry Rice didn't have the greatest 40 time in the world, but his dedication and work ethic made him the greatest receiver in the NFL.

Without standardized testing, we wouldn't have a measuring stick by which to judge incoming medical students or residents. And whether or not that is deemed "fair," those are the rules that apply to us. So if you possess those intangibles, it's time to display them - by dedicating yourself and showing your hard work in the form of high scores.

We all know by now, and in some cases have we have been painfully told, that not everyone can be a doctor simply by wanting to. "I like to work with people, and want to help them" isn't enough to make a good doctor. ADCOMs and PDs don't go at this willy-nilly. They try to use whatever information is available them to make the best decisions they can.

So open your own doors.

By the way, I'm not sure as to the validity of this information, but maybe someone can verify - I think future administrations of the COMLEX are going to incorporate mock patient / clinical interactions and such? Maybe that will help bridge the gap that the OP is concerned about.

 

[Dr JPH]

By the way, I'm not sure as to the validity of this information, but maybe someone can verify - I think future administrations of the COMLEX are going to incorporate mock patient / clinical interactions and such? Maybe that will help bridge the gap that the OP is concerned about.

They already do.

 

[VALSALVA]

To me "good" is definetly #1 and some #2.

Get rid of the standardized testing in medicine. Focous on what make physicians great, not just on knowing the material.

Becuase everyone in the field is expected to do that. If a physician is not keeping up to date than he or she is doing a tremedous disservice to his or her patients who are expecting top notch care. Is there some else out there that agree's with me?

Okay...your true colors show and I credit you for being honest. I agree with some of what you wrote. Again, being "good" is relative, but to say things like, "focus on what makes physicians great, not just on knowing the material" doesn't exactly boost my confidence in you. To pass off our specialized, life-saving knowledge as "the material" is just a little too flippant, in my opinion. Imagine a doctor saying to a patient, "I wish I could come up with a diagnosis for your condition, but it's really no big deal because it's just the material. However, would you like a back rub?" Okay, that was a bit sarcastic. Point being, I would bet that 99/100 people would rather have a definitive diagnosis than a coke and a smile.

Get rid of standardized tests? What would be better than standardized tests...non-standardized tests? What do you propose instead? What should be our new medschool admission standards?

Just because physicians are expected to stay current doesn't mean they do. The majority don't do nearly as much as they should in this respect.

 

[VALSALVA]

My two cents:
I'm not going to go on a rant about this subject, but there needs to be measurables. Intangibles such as compassion and attentiveness are of course desireable in a physician - but problem solving, critical thinking, integration of knowledge and available data are more than desireable...they are essential. The MCAT and the USMLE give some working data points...they can open doors for an applicant, and they can also close them.

This is basically what I was trying to say, but better!

 

[Dr JPH]

Im still confused.

Could someone PLEASE tell me if my patients are going to die...my MCAT was <30

Please help

 

[spicedmanna]

By the way, I'm not sure as to the validity of this information, but maybe someone can verify - I think future administrations of the COMLEX are going to incorporate mock patient / clinical interactions and such? Maybe that will help bridge the gap that the OP is concerned about.

I agree with your non-rant, by the way. Also, to address your question, it's already part of the COMLEX-USA series; it is called COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE.

 

[StringerBell]

They already do.

Thanks.
What was your experience with this?
i.e., how did it go, how useful do you think it was?

 

[StringerBell]

This is basically what I was trying to say, but better!

Thanks! Although you contributed this masterpiece:

Last edited by VALSALVA : Today at 10:50 PM. Reason: it needed to be changed.

Sometimes the simple things make me laugh my a$$ off. 🙂
It reminds me of a line from the Jet Li movie Unleashed:

Morgan Freeman: There were people fighting. Weren't you scared?
Jet Li: *shrug* They weren't fighting me.

 

[Dr JPH]

Thanks.
What was your experience with this?
i.e., how did it go, how useful do you think it was?

It was useless and I passed.

 

[StringerBell]

You need at least a 24 on your MCAT or your patients will die.

Im still confused.
Could someone PLEASE tell me if my patients are going to die...my MCAT was <30. Please help

I think you're safe for the most part, given the above information. Even though it was <30, it was still >24, right?

That just means they may die.

 

[VALSALVA]

Im still confused.

Could someone PLEASE tell me if my patients are going to die...my MCAT was <30

Please help

It's not all about patients dying. It's usually about making a non-lifethreatening diagnosis that the patient is "dying" to have defined and treated. Of course, us DO's are all about preventative medicine anyhow...we don't deal with death {laying it on real thick}.

 

[Kappy1]

Okay...your true colors show and I credit you for being honest. I agree with some of what you wrote. Again, being "good" is relative, but to say things like, "focus on what makes physicians great, not just on knowing the material" doesn't exactly boost my confidence in you. To pass off our specialized, life-saving knowledge as "the material" is just a little too flippant, in my opinion. Imagine a doctor saying to a patient, "I wish I could come up with a diagnosis for your condition, but it's really no big deal because it's just the material. However, would you like a back rub?" Okay, that was a bit sarcastic. Point being, I would bet that 99/100 people would rather have a definitive diagnosis than a coke and a smile.

Get rid of standardized tests? What would be better than standardized tests...non-standardized tests? What do you propose instead? What should be our new medschool admission standards?

Just because physicians are expected to stay current doesn't mean they do. The majority don't do nearly as much as they should in this respect.

You are taking what I said just a tad to litteral and I think you understood what I was saying. My point is that when we are 55 we are going to have to sit down and study for another exam to test our competence as a physician. The point was made that 90% pass anyhow and no one cares by how much. Again passing is knowing 80% or more of the material. Physicians are competent most of the time. Also the 10% that fail will have to retake it and if they still fail can lose their jobs after going through the years of schooling and training to have that happen to people is terrible. However, focus on the other parts of being a physician. Again most people prove thier competence on these exams anyhow. Most students regardless of their medical training pass the boards anyhow. I did hear from a medical student who went to last years AAMC meetings on the MCAT(not sure if it is true) that AAMC was looking to test compassionablity on the MCAT's. The way that they would do it is by having you watch a clip of someone getting hurt or injured and seeing your responce to the situation. Obviously this will have its problems becuase people can be really good actors. Most of us also see from movies and tv people getting shot, killed, etc.... and are desensatized anyway. Has anyone else heard about this? But I do feel that a part on the MCAT where other parts of being a physician are tested, as well as the USMLE's having a section on that will make us all better physicians.

 

[Kappy1]

I agree with you. But I still dont know what it has to do with MCATs

The MCAT's should be geared to making the best possible physician not just a competency test. As I pointed out earlier no matter what form of medical training someone has they are able to practice medicine in this country. Becuase most people pass the boards. Which means that medical students regardless of their MCAT score or GPA are generally competent in the material. Yes their needs to be standards, and not everyone can be a doctor. But I would think the medical community can do better for itself thats all.

 

[Dr JPH]

The MCAT's should be geared to making the best possible physician not just a competency test. As I pointed out earlier no matter what form of medical training someone has they are able to practice medicine in this country. Becuase most people pass the boards. Which means that medical students regardless of their MCAT score or GPA are generally competent in the material. Yes their needs to be standards, and not everyone can be a doctor. But I would think the medical community can do better for itself thats all.

Those who can cut it are weeded out in medical school. The MCAT isnt an appropriate place to do that.

How can you test to see if someone will be a good physician while they are still a college student?

A 20 or 21 year old in college student sitting for the MCAT...THATS when you want to determine if they will become a good physician? I dont think so. How about in medical school when they are taking courses relevant to the field.

And I hate to break it to you, but failing the boards doesnt mean you will not become a great physician. At one point or another a significant portion of physicians will fail SOMETHING. Step 1, 2 or 3...specialty boards, recerts...you name it.

There are surgical programs out there that are considered "Upper Tier" where only 90% of their class passes the surgical boards on the first attempt.

Simply put, you cant judge the type of physician someone will become from their scores on a standardized test, especially a test administered 3 years before that person ever sees a real patient. I am proof of that.

 

[VALSALVA]

Simply put, you cant judge the type of physician someone will become from their scores on a standardized test, especially a test administered 3 years before that person ever sees a real patient. I am proof of that.

So what type of physician are you?

 

[beastmaster]

He's not one. PCOM is withholding his diploma until he can control his urge to read the pre-med forums.

 

[Kappy1]

Those who can cut it are weeded out in medical school. The MCAT isnt an appropriate place to do that.

How can you test to see if someone will be a good physician while they are still a college student?

A 20 or 21 year old in college student sitting for the MCAT...THATS when you want to determine if they will become a good physician? I dont think so. How about in medical school when they are taking courses relevant to the field.

And I hate to break it to you, but failing the boards doesnt mean you will not become a great physician. At one point or another a significant portion of physicians will fail SOMETHING. Step 1, 2 or 3...specialty boards, recerts...you name it.

There are surgical programs out there that are considered "Upper Tier" where only 90% of their class passes the surgical boards on the first attempt.

Simply put, you cant judge the type of physician someone will become from their scores on a standardized test, especially a test administered 3 years before that person ever sees a real patient. I am proof of that.

I think we are both in agreement then. Standardized testing should not be the end all in medicine at any level. Again the MCAT and USMLE are not accurate indicators of who the best physicians are and are only competency tests then there should not be a need for them. Most physicians are competent most of the time and that is all anyone can ask for. However, these exams seem to be the end all in medicine when they shouldn't be. I would like to see it changed. Again if we need to make a leveled playing field to determine these factors it should be based on all factors not just content, which it currently doesn't do. If there is no test that does that then so be it. If you are going to tell me about LOR's and EC's that isn't leveled either, everyone is different in that aspect as well.

 

[Taus]

I've heard people say that the clinical skills portion of step 2 of the boards was put in place to help alleviate some of these problems......but the bulk of people who I've talked to about it said the test is a bunch of bs/waste of money and will really just weed out a small minority complete social ******s/a$$holes...

 

[Static Line]

a$$holes...

I expected to stay out of this one but since you brought me into it.

No these tests do not determine if you will be a good physician. But they do determine if you get to become one. So it is useless to debate their merits because there has to be someway to test 16k + every year and this is it.

Study your a$$ off and you too will pass.

 

[Kappy1]

I expected to stay out of this one but since you brought me into it.

No these tests do not determine if you will be a good physician. But they do determine if you get to become one. So it is useless to debate their merits because there has to be someway to test 16k + every year and this is it.

Study your a$$ off and you too will pass.

The point is that they shouldn't and hopefully one day they won't.

 

[Static Line]

The point is that they shouldn't and hopefully one day they won't.

The whole point of debate is to see a problem and offer a solution. How should 16k+ every year be tested the same to achieve fairness for all?

 

[Dr JPH]

I think the responsibility should sit with the individual schools to remove those students who are detrimental to society.

Very few people who graduate medical school are bad physicians...and even at that, the quality of a physician is often based on perspective.

Society has a way of handling these types of docs...malpractice, lawsuits, lack of hospital privelages, etc

No standardized test is going to accurately predict what someone will become.

You cant test compassion, empathy and desire on a standardized test. You can only evaluate subjective things.

Any objective test is open to interpretation. And I dont trust any governing body interpreting an objective exam.

If they want to see that I know my antibiotics and chromosomes, fine. But no exam is going to guage my compassion for a dying patient or my desire to read journal articles to keep up with current medical therapy.

If the MCAT ever comes to that you are going to end up with a bunch of handholding bookworms going to medical school, while those of us who function in different ways will be excluded because we dont have the righ objective characteristics...according to a panel of doctors. Give me a break.

 

[Kappy1]

The whole point of debate is to see a problem and offer a solution. How should 16k+ every year be tested the same to achieve fairness for all?

I was just pointing out the problem and hoping that the "intelligent people" (yes, I'm using this term very loosely because some people make really stupid comments on sdn) on this board could come up with a solution together through discussion.

 

[Kappy1]

I think the responsibility should sit with the individual schools to remove those students who are detrimental to society.

Very few people who graduate medical school are bad physicians...and even at that, the quality of a physician is often based on perspective.

Society has a way of handling these types of docs...malpractice, lawsuits, lack of hospital privelages, etc

No standardized test is going to accurately predict what someone will become.

You cant test compassion, empathy and desire on a standardized test. You can only evaluate subjective things.

Any objective test is open to interpretation. And I dont trust any governing body interpreting an objective exam.

If they want to see that I know my antibiotics and chromosomes, fine. But no exam is going to guage my compassion for a dying patient or my desire to read journal articles to keep up with current medical therapy.

If the MCAT ever comes to that you are going to end up with a bunch of handholding bookworms going to medical school, while those of us who function in different ways will be excluded because we dont have the righ objective characteristics...according to a panel of doctors. Give me a break.

very well said.

 

[DrBowtie]

I was just pointing out the problem and hoping that the "intelligent people" (yes, I'm using this term very loosely because some people make really stupid comments on sdn) on this board could come up with a solution together through discussion.

So you're saying that competancy should only be measured at whether you pass an arbitrary threshhold where you are deemed competant?

Competancy is a continuum and some are far more competant than others but you don't think there should be distinction between the two since they are both baseline competant?

Should we really go the way of little league and not keep score?

The problem is that there are a limited number of spots with more people who could succeed. Arbitrary numbers of say 20k spots for 24k "competant" applicants. Thats why it needs to be stratified further.

 

[Kappy1]

So you're saying that competancy should only be measured at whether you pass an arbitrary threshhold where you are deemed competant?

Competancy is a continuum and some are far more competant than others but you don't think there should be distinction between the two since they are both baseline competant?

Should we really go the way of little league and not keep score?

The problem is that there are a limited number of spots with more people who could succeed. Arbitrary numbers of say 20k spots for 24k "competant" applicants. Thats why it needs to be stratified further.

What I'm saying is the exact problem you mention. With this form of testing you have established a base line of competence that the profession requires which most people in any medical school have already because most pass these exams. I totally agree that we need more spots in medical schools and that is currently happening yearly, but not quick enough. There is a physician shortage in this country and that is well known.

 

[Dr JPH]

What I'm saying is the exact problem you mention. With this form of testing you have established a base line of competence that the profession requires which most people in any medical school have already because most pass these exams. I totally agree that we need more spots in medical schools and that is currently happening yearly, but not quick enough. There is a physician shortage in this country and that is well known.

So you want MORE physicians AND want those people to be more competent at the same time?

Good luck.