Double 260+ advantage?

[knockoutMice]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I am asking this in relation to FMGs and Internal Medicine in particular.

Does a double 260+ really give you any advantage over a double 250+ or 240+?

I mean do program directors screen for "Step1>260 AND Step 2CK>260" candidates and consider them more favorably for offering interviews compared to a double 250+ or 240+?

I understand that it "depends" and "varies from program to program" and that the whole profile is important, but I am just asking as a general idea or a general trend?

 

[aa1984]

I doubt there is much of a difference between 240 and 260 from a PD's point. I might be wrong - I didn't score even close to a 240 on either exam. There are SO many other things you want to strengthen your application with as an IMG, the extra points beyond a 240 probably just make for bragging rights. Within limited circles where it matters.

 

[Gastrin]

I doubt there is much of a difference between 240 and 260 from a PD's point. I might be wrong - I didn't score even close to a 240 on either exam. There are SO many other things you want to strengthen your application with as an IMG, the extra points beyond a 240 probably just make for bragging rights. Within limited circles where it matters.

Then what's the point of giving a score 🙁 Just turn it into a grade system or something.

Going all the way to device an exam to test the basic science and clinical knowledge of individuals and not rewarding those who get excellent scores 😕

I even read on some SDN post that some programs wouldn't care to call anybody above 280 because they might be weirdos.

Also, from SDN posts, I have had this impression that getting high scores might expose you to more scrutiny during interviews. Can anybody please confirm if such a mindset exists or not?

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Then what's the point of giving a score 🙁 Just turn it into a grade system or something.

Going all the way to device an exam to test the basic science and clinical knowledge of individuals and not rewarding those who get excellent scores 😕

I even read on some SDN post that some programs wouldn't care to call anybody above 280 because they might be weirdos.

Also, from SDN posts, I have had this impression that getting high scores might expose you to more scrutiny during interviews. Can anybody please confirm if such a mindset exists or not?

These scores are steeply curved. Someone who gets a 280 might have gotten just 2 or 3 questions more correct than the person who got a 270. Can you tell me that those 2-3 questions mean very much in the broad scheme of things?

 

[CD15]

These scores are steeply curved. Someone who gets a 280 might have gotten just 2 or 3 questions more correct than the person who got a 270. Can you tell me that those 2-3 questions mean very much in the broad scheme of things?

Can you share some data to support your claims? 🙂

AFAIK neither FSMB nor NBME has ever released any actual information as to how the tests are scored. I am not even sure if every question has got equal weightage.
I had read a lot about online v/s offline NBME score correlations. What I had gathered was that offline forms were useless as different questions got you different points depending upon the difficulty level (how many people could answer it). (Again, these are speculations)
I think rationally speaking, the curve should flatten out at the top (if you plot knowledge or correct answers on the X axis v/s scores on the Y axis). If the scoring were that steep and if it were uniform then are you suggesting that you get roughly 2 to 3 points for each correct answer? That would require like 87 to 130 correct answers to get a 260 score. I think that's highly improbable.
If you ask me, then there's a whole lot difference between a student scoring 240 (56th percentile) vs a student scoring 270 (95th percentile) on Step 2 CK (mean=237 SD=21). (Note the percentile for 270 may be even higher, morey like 95-98 percentile because Charting Outcomes and SDN analysis of scores suggest that the score distribution may actually be positively skewed)
If a student scoring 95th percentile does not get favorable treatment over one scoring 56th percentile, I think we have a problem with the system. The country where I come from, parents would disown you if you scored 56th percentile 😀
I would appreciate if some fellows, attendings and PDs could shed some light on this.

(With my above arguments, I do not intend to undermine the screening and interview process. I fully support that a candidate needs to have a well rounded profile. Also that it's absolutely essential for the candidate to be a normal person so that he/she will be able to work in a team environment.)

PS And for the rumor about discarding people for scoring 280 out of suspicion that they might be complete weirdos - we have a saying "Whatever gossip goes around, at least some of it must be true." Well if any of it is true, then I have to say I've never heard such a dumb argument before. Going by that argument, people never should have let Einstein study physics.

 

[HoldTheCoffee]

I don't really understand the point of this thread. Of course a double 260 looks better than a double 250 or double 240. How much it matters, no one really knows and it probably varies from program to program even within the same specialty.

Also the rumors about getting excluded from having "too high" a score are just silly. This reminds me of the days of when I was applying for med school and premeds would circulate the rumor about how MCATs > 40 would be excluded automatically. If you have a high score, a great personality, and something other than #s (LORs, ECs, etc.) you'll do great.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Can you share some data to support your claims? 🙂

AFAIK neither FSMB nor NBME has ever released any actual information as to how the tests are scored. I am not even sure if every question has got equal weightage.
I had read a lot about online v/s offline NBME score correlations. What I had gathered was that offline forms were useless as different questions got you different points depending upon the difficulty level (how many people could answer it). (Again, these are speculations)
I think rationally speaking, the curve should flatten out at the top (if you plot knowledge or correct answers on the X axis v/s scores on the Y axis). If the scoring were that steep and if it were uniform then are you suggesting that you get roughly 2 to 3 points for each correct answer? That would require like 87 to 130 correct answers to get a 260 score. I think that's highly improbable.
If you ask me, then there's a whole lot difference between a student scoring 240 (56th percentile) vs a student scoring 270 (95th percentile) on Step 2 CK (mean=237 SD=21). (Note the percentile for 270 may be even higher, morey like 95-98 percentile because Charting Outcomes and SDN analysis of scores suggest that the score distribution may actually be positively skewed)
If a student scoring 95th percentile does not get favorable treatment over one scoring 56th percentile, I think we have a problem with the system. The country where I come from, parents would disown you if you scored 56th percentile 😀
I would appreciate if some fellows, attendings and PDs could shed some light on this.

(With my above arguments, I do not intend to undermine the screening and interview process. I fully support that a candidate needs to have a well rounded profile. Also that it's absolutely essential for the candidate to be a normal person so that he/she will be able to work in a team environment.)

PS And for the rumor about discarding people for scoring 280 out of suspicion that they might be complete weirdos - we have a saying "Whatever gossip goes around, at least some of it must be true." Well if any of it is true, then I have to say I've never heard such a dumb argument before. Going by that argument, people never should have let Einstein study physics.

No one said scoring was uniform. Of course a greater number of questions are the difference between a 220 and a 230 or a 230 and a 240 vs. 270 and 280. That's the point of the curve. A few questions make the difference at the top and bottom, whereas close to the mean (relatively) lots of questions account for small point increments.