do u know some1 in your class who never studies but does well?

[chef]

i do. my roommate. goes to maybe 20-30% of classes (those required), never studies on weekdays or weekends, just crams 2 days before exams (1 exam every month). he aint lying either b/c i see him everyday.

get this, he always beats the class avg, sometimes by 1 full SD!! he's 1 smart mofo, i think he has photographic memory. it's scary how well he'd do if he was a gunner and studied like my other classmates

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[babinski bob]

i feel sorry for this individual come step 1 time... no matter how smart you are, there's no way in hell you can cram 2 years of material into a month or so of studying when you just learned it by cramming the first time around... while he may be smart enough to pass, if he thinks he's going to do well on step 1, he'll be sadly mistaken i think. what's really sad tho is that if he truly kept up w/ the material, he would undoubtedly be a true superstar and just rock his classes and step 1 and probably end up at the residency of his choice... anyone have other thoughts?

 

[dakotaman]

I don't necessarily agree. While I don't advocate cramming, there's so much info in the first 2 years that it's easy to forget a lot of the details whether utilizing cramming or not. Those who don't cram will likely forget much of the information after the test as well.

Now, if you assume that crammers will cram for Step 1 (which might be a good assumption), then I agree with you. That test is a completely different animal.

I plan to devote about a year to Step 1 review.

 

[phllystyl]

Originally posted by dakotaman


I plan to devote about a year to Step 1 review.

good luck with that.

 

[KyGrlDr2B]

Originally posted by phllystyl
good luck with that.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[dakotaman]

So you two are saying that it's not very possible to start early and slowly review and re-review over the course of a year?! It escapes me as to how else one could do extremely well on the exam! Start early, review, re-review, and do lots of questions. (Obviously, it's not easy.)

 

[Jalby]

Originally posted by babinski bob
i feel sorry for this individual come step 1 time... no matter how smart you are, there's no way in hell you can cram 2 years of material into a month or so of studying when you just learned it by cramming the first time around... while he may be smart enough to pass, if he thinks he's going to do well on step 1, he'll be sadly mistaken i think. what's really sad tho is that if he truly kept up w/ the material, he would undoubtedly be a true superstar and just rock his classes and step 1 and probably end up at the residency of his choice... anyone have other thoughts?

Just because people have other methods for studying doesn't mean they will do bad on step one. Just because most people can't cram for 2 days and rememebr everything doesn't mean everybody is that way. I know 2 people like that at my school, and we have a year end test at the end of the first year. They still did extremely good on it.

 

[Mossjoh]

Originally posted by dakotaman
So you two are saying that it's not very possible to start early and slowly review and re-review over the course of a year?! It escapes me as to how else one could do extremely well on the exam! Start early, review, re-review, and do lots of questions. (Obviously, it's not easy.)

Only if you are robot and want to completely drive yourself insane. 2nd year is certainly not a piece of cake, learning all the pathology ect. To review for Step 2 on top of it would be VERY DIFFICULT in my mind...I can't imagine how burnt out I would be. At MSU, we do PBL which is case based, so studying is like reviewing some stuff for Step 1, but I'm giving myself 3 full weeks of studying before I take Step 1 when school is out.

Mossjoh

 

[Stinger86]

Your second year is much more important than your first year in terms of preparing for the Step 1, so it makes sense to begin some "lite" studying at the beginning of second year and continuing it until you take the exam. That's what I've been doing, and it's hardly taken up any more of my time at all.

Of course, I don't extra-study too much, or I'll get burned out. It's a time allocation thing.

 

[BiggMann79]

I don't know about starting an intense structured review a year out, but during the second year I plan on doing a quick review of the relevant anatomy and physiology during my pathophysiology class, along with the relevant biochemistry during pharmacology. I'm also planning on doing a quick review of each subject this coming Summer, but nothing that intense. I just know that the more times I see something the more permanent it becomes.

 

[dakotaman]

I'm in agreement with BiggMann79. I agree that an intense, structured review all the way through 2nd year would be difficult.

However, light "correlational" study would work well. As he says, the more exposure, the more integrated the knowledge becomes.

 

[8744]

Originally posted by dakotaman
I don't necessarily agree. While I don't advocate cramming, there's so much info in the first 2 years that it's easy to forget a lot of the details whether utilizing cramming or not. Those who don't cram will likely forget much of the information after the test as well.

Now, if you assume that crammers will cram for Step 1 (which might be a good assumption), then I agree with you. That test is a completely different animal.

I plan to devote about a year to Step 1 review.

Second year, if you play your cards right, is Step 1 review.

 

[punjabiMD]

I happen to be one of these people. I cram before the exam and usually get at least the average, while others are driving themselves batty studying.

This is NOT something I consider a "blessing." My problem is that I never developed true studying skills in all my years of schooling and I have become frustrated since I started medical school by trying to stay organized and study regularly. So now when I study, I can only study effectively during the days before the exam. Come Step 1 time, i don't know what I will do. I'm hoping that I will be able to concentrate for 4 weeks of straight studying.

Actually, since I'm posting about this subject on sdnet, maybe it's time I ask you guys for any help,tips to overcome this problem. I WANT TO GET RID OF IT. I just can't study regularly AND effectively.

 

[Sharkfan]

I would suggest starting out small. If you never study until right before a test, then try adding just an hour of study time to your day on an every-other day basis. Get used to it, see what happens, then gradually work your way up.

Baby steps...

 

[kaos]

It's funny how much studying doesn't accomplish much. Whether I study all week long, 24/7, or I just cram the weekend before an exam, I still get the same grade.

 

[Doc Ivy]

Tips for effective study:

Make a to do list... I find if I don't have a plan that's detailed and specific, I end up sitting at my desk and spinning my wheels

Get into a rhythm where you review the day's lectures thouroghly doing whatever supplemental reading it takes to fully get the material-- take notes on the syllabus.

Then go back to the previous day's lectures and just reread them. Then preread the next days lectures, take a few notes get a framework for what's coming up.

Then do the same for lab: Read the dissector, jot down some notes. When you take this approach, I find that things connect better, lab and lecture material gel and catalyze my understanding of it all.

At the end of the week just reread the week's lecture notes, that way things stay fresh in your head. By time the exam comes, you'll have seen things 3-4 times. And your memory of the material will be "photographic"...

hope it helps

~doc

 

[Goofyone]

It's all about regurgitation for me.

No, I'm not bulemic.

I read my lectures and highlight the facts. I don't highlight whole sentences, just key words. Then I try to draw out, write out, or talk out to myself as much stuff as I can possibly remember. I go back and re-read, using the highlighted words as place-markers for my facts to see what I forgot. Then I go over questions in the review books and voila.

I spend about 10 hrs during the week studying, and most of the day before the test.

I gunned a few tests, just to prove to myself I could do it. Then I stopped caring. I have no aspirations of being #1, but it's been pretty easy to stay in the top 25% with my method.

I don't feel that the a$$-busting required to be #1 is worth giving up my SDNing, beer-drinking, movie-watching, and X-box playing.

I'll never remember the anatomy of the perineum, or the MAP kinase pathways, but I really don't give a Jak Stat.

 

[Andrew_Doan]

You can get by without studying until the start of 2nd year. Thereafter, there's no way to pass without studying the material.

 

[Goofyone]

Originally posted by Andrew_Doan
You can get by without studying until the start of 2nd year. Thereafter, there's no way to pass without studying the material.

This makes me glad I'm not in a traditional curriculum. We got all of our subjects right from the start. It never got too boring. I just focus on the 3Ps, and take the rest a little less seriously.

Instead of studying none my first year and all my second year, I've just been half-@$$ing it for both years.

 

[dakotaman]

Originally posted by Goofyone

I'll never remember the anatomy of the perineum, or the MAP kinase pathways, but I really don't give a Jak Stat.

Jak Stat.

By the way, Dr. Doan, do you mean you need to know the material in a much more thorough manner because it includes path and pharm, etc.?

 

[Andrew_Doan]

Originally posted by dakotaman
Jak Stat.

By the way, Dr. Doan, do you mean you need to know the material in a much more thorough manner because it includes path and pharm, etc.?

Basically yes. I don't know anyone who knows the information without studying because it is not intuitive.

 

[jed2023]

How fast people process information and "get things" does differ, but (in an environment where most of your peers are pretty bright) it rarely makes enough of a difference to compensate for massive understudying. No matter how smart you are, you are aren't born knowing information. You have to read, study, and pack it in.

I know a few individuals that study minimally, maybe a third of their average classmate, and do moderately well, usually above the mean and the occasional 1 SD above the mean. But I don't know anyone in my class that's this way and is in the top 5-10%, gradewise. It just doesn't work that way.

The best combination of all (grade wise, anyways), of course, is to be very academically gifted and to gun. That combination can't be beat.

 

[dakotaman]

Dr. Doan, you seem to be a pretty down-to-earth guy, but honestly: shouldn't an M.D./Ph.D. get more than just a standard "doctor" title? Perhaps "Ddr." for all double-doctorate individuals. Then, whenever you enter a room wearing a DDR. title, everyone can GASP at how learned you are!

Or maybe even "MDR." that would mean "multi-doctorate"!

I'm still a kid.

 

[medic8m]

Originally posted by dakotaman
Dr. Doan, you seem to be a pretty down-to-earth guy, but honestly: shouldn't an M.D./Ph.D. get more than just a standard "doctor" title? Perhaps "Ddr." for all double-doctorate individuals. Then, whenever you enter a room wearing a DDR. title, everyone can GASP at how learned you are!

Or maybe even "MDR." that would mean "multi-doctorate"!

I'm still a kid.

I've seen many doc's wear nametags that say MD/PhD after their names

 

[le fort guy]

Originally posted by jed2023
How fast people process information and "get things" does differ, but (in an environment where most of your peers are pretty bright) it rarely makes enough of a difference to compensate for massive understudying. No matter how smart you are, you are aren't born knowing information. You have to read, study, and pack it in.

I know a few individuals that study minimally, maybe a third of their average classmate, and do moderately well, usually above the mean and the occasional 1 SD above the mean. But I don't know anyone in my class that's this way and is in the top 5-10%, gradewise. It just doesn't work that way.

The best combination of all (grade wise, anyways), of course, is to be very academically gifted and to gun. That combination can't be beat.

Exactly, it just doesn't make much sense. People aren't just magically endowed with information from another dimension during an exam. Although certain individual would love to claim that they could just take an anatomy exam and simply figure out all the right anwers without studying a single thing, it just isn't possible. You have to get the information from somewhere. It didn't just magically arrive in your head during the exam.

In my experience, people who pretend they achieve top grades with little study are nothing more than great magicians. It's an illusion. I feel like Houdini because I have exposed so many of these quacks in school. Their trick is they study at odd times of the day. Usually, they study all afternoon and then arrive at night and will party. Thus people assume that person never studies because most people study at night.

Or they are great exagerrators. For example, they will say they went out drinking last night. Their friends may have seen them leave for the bar. What these closet gunners don't tell you is that they did go to the bar.....for only an hour or two and then came home reviewed the day's material for another 3 hours before going to bed. I have seen that happen.

The reason why people love to believe that so many geniuses exist in medical school is because it makes them feel better about themselves. If someone did better than you, it's okay because he or she is a genius. It's nothing more than an excuse. And of course, the closet gunners love the genius label so they don't go out of their way to prove them otherwise.

 

[punjabiMD]

oh man don't even get me started. There's this dork in my class who consistently asks people to go out, play video games, etc. during the week before the exam. He does it to show that he's "done" studying or that he doesn't "need" to study.

He's a really damn smart guy, but I'm sure he studies all hours when he's pretending to be just "chilling."