Firecracker

[JackShephard MD]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

med.firecracker.me

New medical education website rooted in an adaptive learning platform. Looks impressive, check it out.

Cheers.

 

[Ophthoseidon]

Also, how far along are you guys with flagging thus far? I'm around 25% banked, and hoping to use my time during winter break to make some serious progress. I'll be taking Step in June and want to be at least 90% completed with FC by spring break.

I'm at ~75% currently. I'd like to be done 2-3 weeks into winter break

 

[justAstudent]

Great question. Going to piggy back on this if I can. Curious about how you all go about making the most of dedicated. Would love some insight into this. A few questions:

• How far out from the boards will you begin dedicated prep?
• How will you spend your time during dedicated?
• What resources will you use?
• What's your main focus during dedicated? e.g. Covering the remaining material, mastering what you've already covered, taking as many full-length practice exams as possible, etc.

We're launching an updated Q-bank soon, and I want to make sure I understand this group's study behavior.

1. ~5-6 weeks
2. Mostly review and practice tests / question banks
3. UWorld, First Aid / FC, Pathoma
4. Doing as many questions as I can so I know where to focus my studies

 

[ATypicalLymphocyte]

Aren't you already 100% flagged? If so, won't your daily reviews theoretically go down to a more manageable amount within the next few months?

Ultimately, the decision will be with you if you want to stick with it. I know kirbymeister posted that he stopped FC before dedicated to do the tried-and-true UFAP, while mcloaf continued during dedicated. The end result didn't seem to be too different, perhaps suggesting that the bulk of FC's utility comes from daily use in the months leading up to dedicated prep time.

I'm actually taking the exam in 3 weeks (which is going to be my dedicated time). My daily reviews have been ~250 for about a month or two now (even though for a few days here and there it seems I'll be doing 300+ leading up to the exam). I'm just trying to weigh the pro's and con's and see what's the best use of my time now. I've gone through 86% of UW by now. Haven't done a full pass through FA yet (I'm going to try and make one full pass while simultaneously making flashcards for the concepts I haven't mastered yet, which I think might be a good idea given I've been creating flashcards for my wrong questions on UW and it's been pretty helpful).

@mcloaf @kirbymiester Any thoughts?

I don't remember exactly how long I had. I believe I used 4 of the 7 weeks I had off. I was 75% flagged at that point. I didn't flag anything extra unless I just needed to drive home a principle that I was getting wrong in UWorld.

Dedicated consisted of UWorld, a couple NBME's, reading pathoma a couple more times, and I used firecracker solely to hit the stuff that I was weak on. I would go to my breakdown and select to review all the questions rated a 1. When that was done I did all the questions rated a 2 (there were like a thousand of them). I stopped at that point. It was a nice way to ignore the 3, 4, and 5 material that I had a better handle on and really focus on things that I wasn't remembering.

I'm thinking this might be a good idea, but I'd probably have to use the Mobile or the MD app to select the reviews by rating (I just stayed in Legacy since the exam was pretty close already).

On another note, anyone having problems with the MD app on Firefox? 😛

 

[theKeithF]

On another note, anyone having problems with the MD app on Firefox? 😛

Please don't bring up the app situation; it's a sensitive subject. Pains me down deep in my groin.

 

[abolt18]

I'm thinking this might be a good idea, but I'd probably have to use the Mobile or the MD app to select the reviews by rating (I just stayed in Legacy since the exam was pretty close already).

On another note, anyone having problems with the MD app on Firefox? 😛

Yeah I did this with Beta. I still use the beta app and website actually. It functions without any issues. Haven't brought myself to transition to the new program until it's more seamless.

 

[mcloaf]

I'm actually taking the exam in 3 weeks (which is going to be my dedicated time). My daily reviews have been ~250 for about a month or two now (even though for a few days here and there it seems I'll be doing 300+ leading up to the exam). I'm just trying to weigh the pro's and con's and see what's the best use of my time now. I've gone through 86% of UW by now. Haven't done a full pass through FA yet (I'm going to try and make one full pass while simultaneously making flashcards for the concepts I haven't mastered yet, which I think might be a good idea given I've been creating flashcards for my wrong questions on UW and it's been pretty helpful).

@mcloaf @kirbymiester Any thoughts?



I'm thinking this might be a good idea, but I'd probably have to use the Mobile or the MD app to select the reviews by rating (I just stayed in Legacy since the exam was pretty close already).

On another note, anyone having problems with the MD app on Firefox? 😛

IMO it probably depends on how much time/energy it's going to require of you. When I was using it then my daily reviews were generally down to the low 100s and I would just do it as I watched TV and hung out at the end of the day. If I had needed to be very intense about it I probably wouldn't have done so and instead would have focused on the more classic tools for dedicated (UFAP).

 

[smarts1]

Has anyone tried doing the practice exams that they just put up? What do people think of them?

 

[Apoplexy__]

I'm actually taking the exam in 3 weeks (which is going to be my dedicated time). My daily reviews have been ~250 for about a month or two now (even though for a few days here and there it seems I'll be doing 300+ leading up to the exam). I'm just trying to weigh the pro's and con's and see what's the best use of my time now. I've gone through 86% of UW by now. Haven't done a full pass through FA yet (I'm going to try and make one full pass while simultaneously making flashcards for the concepts I haven't mastered yet, which I think might be a good idea given I've been creating flashcards for my wrong questions on UW and it's been pretty helpful).

@mcloaf @kirbymiester Any thoughts?



I'm thinking this might be a good idea, but I'd probably have to use the Mobile or the MD app to select the reviews by rating (I just stayed in Legacy since the exam was pretty close already).

On another note, anyone having problems with the MD app on Firefox? 😛

I say definitely UFAP only, dropping Firecracker, just given the proximity to your test. There's no way those 250-300 Q's are all the best use of your time when you know a majority of the testable material already.

I do feel that FA gives a significant amount of information beyond Firecracker, and I felt mastering it gave me that extra edge to have upward mobility in the high-scoring range. To give you an idea, I think I spent a full 7-10 days or so just 100% studying FA. That might be a little bit overkill, but I really wanted to know every word in there. USMLE Step 1 Q's give you like 3 hints at the answer per question, and you know the answer is somewhere in the question stem; I felt that FA's breadth gave me a better chance at getting those more obscure hints.

 

[CyberMaxx]

I say definitely UFAP only, dropping Firecracker, just given the proximity to your test. There's no way those 250-300 Q's are all the best use of your time when you know a majority of the testable material already.

I do feel that FA gives a significant amount of information beyond Firecracker, and I felt mastering it gave me that extra edge to have upward mobility in the high-scoring range. To give you an idea, I think I spent a full 7-10 days or so just 100% studying FA. That might be a little bit overkill, but I really wanted to know every word in there. USMLE Step 1 Q's give you like 3 hints at the answer per question, and you know the answer is somewhere in the question stem; I felt that FA's breadth gave me a better chance at getting those more obscure hints.

How much time did you spend with FA throughout the year? I'm debating how I should incorporate it into my studies next semester. So far I've just been trying to cram everything in with Firecracker.

 

[Apoplexy__]

How much time did you spend with FA throughout the year? I'm debating how I should incorporate it into my studies next semester. So far I've just been trying to cram everything in with Firecracker.

I did one run alongside UWorld x1, Pathoma x1, and a cursory amount of various other resources from the beginning of 4th semester until right before dedicated (a 4 month period). Then I did a 2nd pass in dedicated, which is what I was referring to with the 7-10 days. Can't really give a time estimate for sure, particularly because I was using so many resources concurrently (often open simultaneously)...but it took longer than the 2nd pass.

I think the decision of FA or UFAP vs. Firecracker in semester 4 isn't the biggest deal -- more one of personal preference. If you're learning every day from FC and it's really engaging stuff, then keep doing it. I personally lean towards dropping FC in the 4th semester, but that's because I did that and I'm biased. To each their own. However, I believe somewhat more strongly that FC during dedicated isn't an optimal use of time.

 

[Leoz M Jiliums]

Hi guys, long term firecracker user switching it up to the firecracker MD mode. Is there anyway we can do the questions after we flag topics in "Study something specific" on mobile? I've tried fiddling with it for a while and couldn't find a way to do it.

 

[Ophthoseidon]

Hi guys, long term firecracker user switching it up to the firecracker MD mode. Is there anyway we can do the questions after we flag topics in "Study something specific" on mobile? I've tried fiddling with it for a while and couldn't find a way to do it.

Mobile as in the app? I don't have the app because it's not on the market yet and I didn't request to get it. Mobile as in via browser on your phone, you just have to flag it, then once you're inside that topic hit "do review questions" at the bottom of the feed

 

[Leoz M Jiliums]

Mobile as in the app? I don't have the app because it's not on the market yet and I didn't request to get it. Mobile as in via browser on your phone, you just have to flag it, then once you're inside that topic hit "do review questions" at the bottom of the feed

Sorry, meant on the mobile website. I'm on iOS and it doesn't let me open the topic unless I go into reader view, there's no button for review questions.

Edit: to clarify, all I can see is the drop down menu with all of the topics, I can't see the content itself unless I go into reader mode

 

[Ophthoseidon]

Sorry, meant on the mobile website. I'm on iOS and it doesn't let me open the topic unless I go into reader view, there's no button for review questions.

Edit: to clarify, all I can see is the drop down menu with all of the topics, I can't see the content itself unless I go into reader mode

You have to be in the content to do them I'm pretty sure, but maybe someone else knows a way. Works fine on my android

 

[theKeithF]

Hey everyone. Over the last few months, I've been blown away by the quality of the discussion here. Your willingness to chat and share your suggestions has helped my team and I continue to improve the Firecracker experience with a degree of clarity that would have been difficult to achieve without your help. Since the holiday season is upon us, I'd like to personally send you all a small token of my appreciation – Just a 'thanks' from us to you. So, if you'd like a little gift, take a second to DM me your address (or email me: [email protected]), and I'll ship one out to you as soon as I can. No nudes, please.

Thanks again, and if we don't chat beforehand, best of luck on your finals!

 

[Bancrofti]

In third year so I haven't gotten a chance to read through this thread in great detail recently... but anyone know if there's been any mention of a pause feature? Coming up on the end of the rotation and starting to realize again why I wish this feature had existed before and I was reluctant to use it.

FC shouldn't be a priority during clinicals, so if you need to forego it in order to prioritize the important things u should be able to do it without having to worry about having 800 questions to do in a week.

 

[Ophthoseidon]

In third year so I haven't gotten a chance to read through this thread in great detail recently... but anyone know if there's been any mention of a pause feature? Coming up on the end of the rotation and starting to realize again why I wish this feature had existed before and I was reluctant to use it.

FC shouldn't be a priority during clinicals, so if you need to forego it in order to prioritize the important things u should be able to do it without having to worry about having 800 questions to do in a week.

The MD platform is designed so that you shouldn't get ridiculously backed up like 800 questions/day. If you're still in legacy mode, it might be worth the switch. I haven't heard anything about a pause feature, so I highly doubt anything like that will be coming soon.

 

[JustAnEvolvedChimp]

Hey everyone. Over the last few months, I've been blown away by the quality of the discussion here. Your willingness to chat and share your suggestions has helped my team and I continue to improve the Firecracker experience with a degree of clarity that would have been difficult to achieve without your help. Since the holiday season is upon us, I'd like to personally send you all a small token of my appreciation – Just a 'thanks' from us to you. So, if you'd like a little gift, take a second to DM me your address (or email me: [email protected]), and I'll ship one out to you as soon as I can. No nudes, please.

Thanks again, and if we don't chat beforehand, best of luck on your finals!

I sent u a mail but didn't get any response ? :-/

 

[DrPicard]

Guys I'm at the point where starting firecracker isn't feasible, but I was wondering if reading their text would be beneficial. You know the information they have on each topic that you can read before doing the questions? As far as I can tell, they contain all the info thats in their flash cards. If I'm not a flash card kind of guy, would it be a good idea just to read that text? What areas of firecracker do you think are the strongest in this regard?

 

[theKeithF]

I sent u a mail but didn't get any response ? :-/

Hey! My bad for not getting back to you quickly, but I did get your email and plan to send everything out today.

 

[theKeithF]

Guys I'm at the point where starting firecracker isn't feasible, but I was wondering if reading their text would be beneficial. You know the information they have on each topic that you can read before doing the questions? As far as I can tell, they contain all the info thats in their flash cards. If I'm not a flash card kind of guy, would it be a good idea just to read that text? What areas of firecracker do you think are the strongest in this regard?

As always, I'll leave it to the other folks here to jump in, but one quick notes: Firecracker's flashcards are generated based on the concepts contained within the topic summaries, so you are correct about the high degree of overlap. (However, this is not the same for test-style questions in the Qbank.) Hope that helps, and I'd love to know why you think starting now isn't feasible.

 

[Daitong]

Hi FC team,

Would you mind passing along a potential suggestion for the content team? I feel that- after taking a good amount of practice bank questions and confirming with other people that have taken Step 1- that anatomy is not that high yield.

Could it be possible to condense the FC anatomy to make it more board relevant, esp with respect to neuroanatomy and pelvic anatomy, which are probably the two most high yield? I and many of my other FCers find the FC anatomy, while comprehensive, may be too exhaustive and wonder if there could there be a option to weigh certain topics in anatomy more than others with your algorithm, especially if the test is nearing (to focus on the most HY material)?

This could apply to other sections as well.

 

[DrPicard]

As always, I'll leave it to the other folks here to jump in, but one quick notes: Firecracker's flashcards are generated based on the concepts contained within the topic summaries, so you are correct about the high degree of overlap. (However, this is not the same for test-style questions in the Qbank.) Hope that helps, and I'd love to know why you think starting now isn't feasible.

Because I'm an IMG who's already gone over the Kaplan series + Pathoma + half of FA once, and I intend on taking the exam with another 6 months or so of studying. (On a break right now since I work and my fathers ill, but I'm targeting a return to studies around Jan and my exam in June). Starting firecracker right now seems like an inefficient use of my time right now, considering the sheer quantity of flashcards they have. In addition, their questions cover everything from the easiest concepts to the most rote intensive stuff. At this point in time the only way I'd want to incorporate flash cards into my studies would be specifically for memorization based stuff that I tend to forget. To this end, I think its just smarter to make my own cards, either hand written or in Anki.

But I'm open to reading firecrackers text on any areas that it covers significantly better than other sources. (Please answer in the context of someone aiming for 260+).

Also, this is the first I'm hearing of the firecracker qbank. Is it any good?

 

[Ophthoseidon]

Hi FC team,

Would you mind passing along a potential suggestion for the content team? I feel that- after taking a good amount of practice bank questions and confirming with other people that have taken Step 1- that anatomy is not that high yield.

Could it be possible to condense the FC anatomy to make it more board relevant, esp with respect to neuroanatomy and pelvic anatomy, which are probably the two most high yield? I and many of my other FCers find the FC anatomy, while comprehensive, may be too exhaustive and wonder if there could there be a option to weigh certain topics in anatomy more than others with your algorithm, especially if the test is nearing (to focus on the most HY material)?

This could apply to other sections as well.

A lot of people like FC anatomy BECAUSE it is the only place where it is truly comprehensive. I highly doubt they will condense it (and they shouldn't). If you only want the high yield topics, only flag those ones

 

[Daitong]

A lot of people like FC anatomy BECAUSE it is the only place where it is truly comprehensive. I highly doubt they will condense it (and they shouldn't). If you only want the high yield topics, only flag those ones

I suppose it would make sense for studying for class, but it would take away valuable time when it comes to crunch time for the boards, when really pelvic, neuro, and certain MSK topics are testable.

 

[Bancrofti]

The MD platform is designed so that you shouldn't get ridiculously backed up like 800 questions/day. If you're still in legacy mode, it might be worth the switch. I haven't heard anything about a pause feature, so I highly doubt anything like that will be coming soon.

The beauty in Legacy is that I can cater it how I want. I used FC for Step I, so I feel that I have a good hang of it. There are things that aren't high yield for me to know that I still want to see with relative frequency and things that aren't high yield that I don't care if I see for another 3 months. Likewise there are things that are important that I want to see right now and things that are important that I don't care about. MD daily cards is based on the score you want suggesting I should do >100 per day. With Legacy I rarely have 100 unless I flagged a bunch of new topics 2 weeks prior. I've looked into MD, but I'm still not really a fan even though it looks nicer.

 

[nabilesmail]

So I'm starting to lose faith in FC. At my school, we only take NBME Exams-essentially our school pays for access to the NBMEs retired bank of questions. For each subject, our professors will pick out 60-80 questions per exam. From my experience being tested through Path (GI, Resp, Card, Basics, Heme,), Micro, Phys, and Pharm, I find much of the FC detail immensely irrelevant. For example, FC lists the 5 categorical types of Pulmonary HTN, something not broken down in FA and Pathoma... not even close to showing up on our exams. It becomes a waste of space in your mind and leads to confusion rather than clarity lol. I also feel FC does a poor job of breaking down systemic/clinical signs which are MUCH more high yield than some of these details. For example, its much more important to explain what Melena, Wheezing, Hypo/Hyperresonance etc are for limiting your answer choices and DX then some of these details, which FC tends to not do. They should include a card per each system explaining what a symptom means and potential causes of that symptom. IMO, FC also needs to start approaching diseases by how to tell them apart versus just explaining each one individually (Note- Still Write them as individual topics, but at the end of the topic, they should explain similar presenting diseases and unique ways to differentiate). Right now, they randomly list SX for individual diseases, sometimes bolding SX that aren't useful for telling the disease apart, while unbolding Sx that are. Honestly, I feel like it is just someone randomly going through different sources and thinking "Oh this seems cool, let me add it in" rather then spending resources to decipher what is yield and what is not. It also gets confusing because I start to think some SX are only for 1 disease while not for similar diseases because they choose to write in SX for one and not the other *EX: Primary Billiary cirrhosis vs. 1 Sclerosising Choleangitis, Many SX are similar and should be differentiated by Lab tests/Antibodies* Lastly, I'd like to mention that I think the pharm section is very poorly done. I do not think you would be able to pass NBME exams using only FCs base of knowledge. They need to do a better job of "line of progression" and they need to delineate drugs within a class a bit more, grouping in this case sometimes gives wrong information (Ex: Listing Side Effects for a Class of Drugs when really a specific SE is only for one of those drugs) . For example (for Line of Progression), under CV Drugs, an individual drug topic might say "Use for HTN", but on the exam your answer choices can have multiple drugs that could technically work, its up to you to know the line of progression, or which is better under under which circumstance which FC does not explain. They should do something like Ex: P. aeruginosa- 1st use A, if that doesn't work use B, if they are resistant use C, the following could also work but are not often used: D,E,F.
(Note: Sometimes they do break it down, sometimes they don't, its inconsistent).

It is worth noting that my NBME questions are retired and thus likely much older questions, but somehow I don't think newer questions are going to be as detailed as FC puts out. If FC wants to improve, I suggest they start looking into cutting down their material details for certain topics (Come on, is a single test question really going to have multiple answer choices for the individual processes that form Anterior vs Posterior vs. Anteroposterior Cleft Palates? Unlikely, they're probably just going to post a picture of a cleft palate and have one answer choice related to Palantine/Maxillary processes with the rest being completely wrong/related to other congenital problems.) They should also include a summary card for each system that breaks down potential dx by symptoms (EX: Pt has RUQ Abdominal pain-K lets think about Liver, Gallbladder. It radiates to the R. Shoulder? K lets think about Gallbladder and perforated Duodenal ulcer etc. Grouping diseases by SX and explaining good ways to differentiate them would be VERY useful!

 

[Ophthoseidon]

So I'm starting to lose faith in FC. At my school, we only take NBME Exams-essentially our school pays for access to the NBMEs retired bank of questions. For each subject, our professors will pick out 60-80 questions per exam. From my experience being tested through Path (GI, Resp, Card, Basics, Heme,), Micro, Phys, and Pharm, I find much of the FC detail immensely irrelevant. For example, FC lists the 5 categorical types of Pulmonary HTN, something not broken down in FA and Pathoma... not even close to showing up on our exams. It becomes a waste of space in your mind and leads to confusion rather than clarity lol. I also feel FC does a poor job of breaking down systemic/clinical signs which are MUCH more high yield than some of these details. For example, its much more important to explain what Melena, Wheezing, Hypo/Hyperresonance etc are for limiting your answer choices and DX then some of these details, which FC tends to not do. They should include a card per each system explaining what a symptom means and potential causes of that symptom. IMO, FC also needs to start approaching diseases by how to tell them apart versus just explaining each one individually (Note- Still Write them as individual topics, but at the end of the topic, they should explain similar presenting diseases and unique ways to differentiate). Right now, they randomly list SX for individual diseases, sometimes bolding SX that aren't useful for telling the disease apart, while unbolding Sx that are. Honestly, I feel like it is just someone randomly going through different sources and thinking "Oh this seems cool, let me add it in" rather then spending resources to decipher what is yield and what is not. It also gets confusing because I start to think some SX are only for 1 disease while not for similar diseases because they choose to write in SX for one and not the other *EX: Primary Billiary cirrhosis vs. 1 Sclerosising Choleangitis, Many SX are similar and should be differentiated by Lab tests/Antibodies* Lastly, I'd like to mention that I think the pharm section is very poorly done. I do not think you would be able to pass NBME exams using only FCs base of knowledge. They need to do a better job of "line of progression" and they need to delineate drugs within a class a bit more, grouping in this case sometimes gives wrong information (Ex: Listing Side Effects for a Class of Drugs when really a specific SE is only for one of those drugs) . For example (for Line of Progression), under CV Drugs, an individual drug topic might say "Use for HTN", but on the exam your answer choices can have multiple drugs that could technically work, its up to you to know the line of progression, or which is better under under which circumstance which FC does not explain. They should do something like Ex: P. aeruginosa- 1st use A, if that doesn't work use B, if they are resistant use C, the following could also work but are not often used: D,E,F.
(Note: Sometimes they do break it down, sometimes they don't, its inconsistent).

It is worth noting that my NBME questions are retired and thus likely much older questions, but somehow I don't think newer questions are going to be as detailed as FC puts out. If FC wants to improve, I suggest they start looking into cutting down their material details for certain topics (Come on, is a single test question really going to have multiple answer choices for the individual processes that form Anterior vs Posterior vs. Anteroposterior Cleft Palates? Unlikely, they're probably just going to post a picture of a cleft palate and have one answer choice related to Palantine/Maxillary processes with the rest being completely wrong/related to other congenital problems.) They should also include a summary card for each system that breaks down potential dx by symptoms (EX: Pt has RUQ Abdominal pain-K lets think about Liver, Gallbladder. It radiates to the R. Shoulder? K lets think about Gallbladder and perforated Duodenal ulcer etc. Grouping diseases by SX and explaining good ways to differentiate them would be VERY useful!

My school takes NBME exams as well, and though I can sympathize with you on the Sx lists (mostly because they are near impossible for me to remember), I feel like it has prepared me for most of my NBME exams pretty well. Firecracker is supposed to be a comprehensive thing, not just high-yield. It's also very editor dependent, which I think is why sometimes there seems to be a disconnect between sections. Some cover basically FA, others are from Rapid Review or Robbins word-for-word. I think the details can be what separates a 250-255 from a 245. My main gripe is symptom question as well, because there are no explanations, just random lists. But then again, even though sometimes I get frustrated with not knowing the symptom lists, I'll still get questions right on qbanks and NBMEs based on a presentation rather than a list.

I'd say stick with it. Idk how well you do on NBMEs, but I do feel pretty prepared using firecracker. You can always message them on the system and explain changes you'd like to see directly to the content team. They really do pay attention to user feedback, especially if you are consistently a top user, because they value the product.

Also, as you mentioned I think most of the retired questions in those banks are multitudes easier than what we're going to see on test day. Questions from the early-mid 2000's just aren't as savvy as they are currently. Just trust in the system. Worst case scenario you waste 2-3 hours of your 16+ hours you have in a day, and know you tried as hard as you could. Although firecracker is supposed to be all encompassing, you still have 13 hours to work on other materials.

 

[nabilesmail]

My school takes NBME exams as well, and though I can sympathize with you on the Sx lists (mostly because they are near impossible for me to remember), I feel like it has prepared me for most of my NBME exams pretty well. Firecracker is supposed to be a comprehensive thing, not just high-yield. It's also very editor dependent, which I think is why sometimes there seems to be a disconnect between sections. Some cover basically FA, others are from Rapid Review or Robbins word-for-word. I think the details can be what separates a 250-255 from a 245. My main gripe is symptom question as well, because there are no explanations, just random lists. But then again, even though sometimes I get frustrated with not knowing the symptom lists, I'll still get questions right on qbanks and NBMEs based on a presentation rather than a list.

I'd say stick with it. Idk how well you do on NBMEs, but I do feel pretty prepared using firecracker. You can always message them on the system and explain changes you'd like to see directly to the content team. They really do pay attention to user feedback, especially if you are consistently a top user, because they value the product.

Also, as you mentioned I think most of the retired questions in those banks are multitudes easier than what we're going to see on test day. Questions from the early-mid 2000's just aren't as savvy as they are currently. Just trust in the system. Worst case scenario you waste 2-3 hours of your 16+ hours you have in a day, and know you tried as hard as you could. Although firecracker is supposed to be all encompassing, you still have 13 hours to work on other materials.

Absolutely, I agree, I want FC to be comprehensive of HY + Relevant LY material, to me Comprehensive means "smartly" included and testable, not lets see how many facts we can include, there is literally an infinite amount of material, even in a comprehensive bank you need to strategically choose to include or not include material. In the LY material area, I find it to be very random which I agree to be editor dependent. One additional complaint is that I don't think everything in FA is in FC, I didn't really look at FA because I assumed it was all there, but recently I started looking at FA before exams and I always found additional things that seemed important (This could be due random locations of the material though, maybe it is in FC somewhere).

I do agree that FC has everything you need content wise to do well on NBME tests (except I don't hold this true for Pharm), I haven't had many questions on my exams that were not somewhere in FC, but I've had plenty of material in FC that just makes me frustrated for memorizing after taking an NBME exam.

I just think that if the Editors took the approach of "Hey, by not including this material do I risk FC users getting this question wrong?", it would be much more efficient with the same results. Once again things like the Cleft Palate Info bother me-There is no way A USMLE test question would have you differentiate between 2 answers that could both cause different types of Cleft Palates-too me this isn't low yield, its no-yield.

I'm definitely sticking through with FC mostly because I've spent too much time on it lol. Don't get me wrong, I love the program, but I feel like simple changes could go a long way in gaining better results.

1. Allow users access to edit questions/answers- (Do this first, it allows the user to make all the other changes for themselves in the meantime) My Reasoning: User would be able to explain a symptoms pathophys, or include/delete information that is worthy/unworthy. Editing a question is important in terms of time efficiency, sometimes questions don't do the best job of communicating what they are looking for, this leads to the user getting the flashcard wrong, marking it a low number, and repeating this cycle over and over (You won't see this question again soon enough to remember what it was asking once you have a good amount of FC flagged).

2. Include a Clinical Sign card for each system explaining common symptoms and possible dx (Ex: What is Wheezing, what are possible causes)- RR Has a Great chart in the respiratory section as a solid example of what FC should do
3. Bold Important SX and explain WHY they are bolded- Ex: A) Best Sx to distinguish Disease A from B, B) Because this diseases is the most common cause of this Sx, C) Pathognomic
4. Explain which SX/Lab Tests are the most important for separating dx + Include similar presenting disease as 1-2 sentences at the end of a topic
5. Distinguish Non-specific Sx (lol lots of Sx stuff)

6. Go through the material and edit out stuff that would not affect results. This is important! Too much material is more harmful then good especially in a flashcard program because it increases the time gap between seeing more important/relevant cards.

 

[theKeithF]

Absolutely, I agree, I want FC to be comprehensive of HY + Relevant LY material, to me Comprehensive means "smartly" included and testable, not lets see how many facts we can include, there is literally an infinite amount of material, even in a comprehensive bank you need to strategically choose to include or not include material. In the LY material area, I find it to be very random which I agree to be editor dependent. One additional complaint is that I don't think everything in FA is in FC, I didn't really look at FA because I assumed it was all there, but recently I started looking at FA before exams and I always found additional things that seemed important (This could be due random locations of the material though, maybe it is in FC somewhere).

I do agree that FC has everything you need content wise to do well on NBME tests (except I don't hold this true for Pharm), I haven't had many questions on my exams that were not somewhere in FC, but I've had plenty of material in FC that just makes me frustrated for memorizing after taking an NBME exam.

I just think that if the Editors took the approach of "Hey, by not including this material do I risk FC users getting this question wrong?", it would be much more efficient with the same results. Once again things like the Cleft Palate Info bother me-There is no way A USMLE test question would have you differentiate between 2 answers that could both cause different types of Cleft Palates-too me this isn't low yield, its no-yield.

I'm definitely sticking through with FC mostly because I've spent too much time on it lol. Don't get me wrong, I love the program, but I feel like simple changes could go a long way in gaining better results.

1. Allow users access to edit questions/answers- (Do this first, it allows the user to make all the other changes for themselves in the meantime) My Reasoning: User would be able to explain a symptoms pathophys, or include/delete information that is worthy/unworthy. Editing a question is important in terms of time efficiency, sometimes questions don't do the best job of communicating what they are looking for, this leads to the user getting the flashcard wrong, marking it a low number, and repeating this cycle over and over (You won't see this question again soon enough to remember what it was asking once you have a good amount of FC flagged).

2. Include a Clinical Sign card for each system explaining common symptoms and possible dx (Ex: What is Wheezing, what are possible causes)- RR Has a Great chart in the respiratory section as a solid example of what FC should do
3. Bold Important SX and explain WHY they are bolded- Ex: A) Best Sx to distinguish Disease A from B, B) Because this diseases is the most common cause of this Sx, C) Pathognomic
4. Explain which SX/Lab Tests are the most important for separating dx + Include similar presenting disease as 1-2 sentences at the end of a topic
5. Distinguish Non-specific Sx (lol lots of Sx stuff)

6. Go through the material and edit out stuff that would not affect results. This is important! Too much material is more harmful then good especially in a flashcard program because it increases the time gap between seeing more important/relevant cards.

@nabilesmail & @Ophthoseidon Are you both cool if I invite our editor in chief to come in and chat about this? I think this is important stuff, but candidly it's a bit outside of my comfort zone. We can also chat about it offline if you prefer. Totally up to you!

 

[nabilesmail]

@nabilesmail & @Ophthoseidon Are you both cool if I invite our editor in chief to come in and chat about this? I think this is important stuff, but candidly it's a bit outside of my comfort zone. We can also chat about it offline if you prefer. Totally up to you!

I'd love to, perhaps over the weekend. I would like to mention, while I was studying for todays finals and revisiting old topics, I have noticed that some topics have been edited to reduce material or clarify it. I've also noticed a few topics where the card did try and help you delineate the disease from others, which is perfect, only problem is the inconsistency between cards that do so, and cards that don't. Overall, the pathophys/hard path aspects of FC are really good, but even in our path exams, I'd say >70% of questions are clinical presentations. I think this indicates a larger focus on the clinical aspect of each disease (not necessarily removing pathophys, but just spending some time editing topics to consolidate and clarify the clinical aspect). Also, I think we need some more Old FC user input who have already taken STEP 1, once again, our NBME Exams are old retired questions that, in general, have short stems and are fairly straight forward. If you have clinical presentations down pat, it is very easy to do well as I don't see the path/pathophys stuff being the limiting factor. Please message me and we can talk about a chat time.

 

[Ophthoseidon]

@nabilesmail & @Ophthoseidon Are you both cool if I invite our editor in chief to come in and chat about this? I think this is important stuff, but candidly it's a bit outside of my comfort zone. We can also chat about it offline if you prefer. Totally up to you!

The weekend would be great for me as well. Finals are tomorrow so I should be good at mostly anytime. You can send me a message as well

 

[justabanana]

Any ETA on being able to see the questions marked as a 1 from today's questions? Copying and pasting every question I mark low bums me out a bit, hah.

 

[SeahawksFan]

Hey guys I wanted to know what is a good average memory score near the exam.. I am around a month or so out ?
Any help would be appreciated

 

[ATypicalLymphocyte]

Hey guys I wanted to know what is a good average memory score near the exam.. I am around a month or so out ?
Any help would be appreciated

Your memory score will vary depending on the personal criteria you use to rank questions. Taking that into account, your average memory score is probably not a reliable indicator of anything meaningful when compared to others (who might rank questions higher when having less recall than you do or vice versa).

 

[skarabrae]

Hey guys I wanted to know what is a good average memory score near the exam.. I am around a month or so out ?
Any help would be appreciated

ATypicalLymphocyte is right in that the recall score probably isn't a great indicator of anything meaningful, but Firecracker does have some data on average recall score and step score. There is certainly a trend but also enormous variability, so take it with a grain of salt.

http://blog.firecracker.me/students/firecracker-step-1-and-comlex-performance-analysis

 

[SeahawksFan]

ATypicalLymphocyte is right in that the recall score probably isn't a great indicator of anything meaningful, but Firecracker does have some data on average recall score and step score. There is certainly a trend but also enormous variability, so take it with a grain of salt.

http://blog.firecracker.me/students/firecracker-step-1-and-comlex-performance-analysis

Thanks

 

[mymembernames]

I was told that there are about 20,000 cards total in FC. Does anyone know how many of these cards are made from material that is outside of First Aid?

 

[tedwilliams1999]

Hello everyone! OMSII here, and I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on my current predicament.

I've been using firecracker religiously since the start of the M2 school year, and I love the resource. My only issue is that our school has a systems based approach where we covered all of Heme/Onc, Cardio, Renal, and Pulmonary during the M1 year. We won't be seeing this material again, so I've been trying to go back and flag what I can, as well as flagging concurrent school subjects. This was a struggle, but I've been working pretty hard during this winter break, and I should have all of those organ systems tagged, along with all of Ortho/Rheum, Neurology, and Psychiatry.

With that said, by my calculations I'll still have only flagged about 465 out of the 1162 (40%) topics by the end of this break. I should have all of the rest of the organ systems flagged as we cover that material with our course work, but that's still only about 60% of the bank flagged before dedicated step studying time begins. The rest of the topics that remain unflagged will be most of the basic sciences. So my question is this - should I keep grinding during second semester until I am able to flag most of the biochemistry/microbiology/etc as well? Or should I focus on those lower yield subjects via different resources?

Thank you!

 

[ATypicalLymphocyte]

Hello everyone! OMSII here, and I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on my current predicament.

I've been using firecracker religiously since the start of the M2 school year, and I love the resource. My only issue is that our school has a systems based approach where we covered all of Heme/Onc, Cardio, Renal, and Pulmonary during the M1 year. We won't be seeing this material again, so I've been trying to go back and flag what I can, as well as flagging concurrent school subjects. This was a struggle, but I've been working pretty hard during this winter break, and I should have all of those organ systems tagged, along with all of Ortho/Rheum, Neurology, and Psychiatry.

With that said, by my calculations I'll still have only flagged about 465 out of the 1162 (40%) topics by the end of this break. I should have all of the rest of the organ systems flagged as we cover that material with our course work, but that's still only about 60% of the bank flagged before dedicated step studying time begins. The rest of the topics that remain unflagged will be most of the basic sciences. So my question is this - should I keep grinding during second semester until I am able to flag most of the biochemistry/microbiology/etc as well? Or should I focus on those lower yield subjects via different resources?

Thank you!

I think FC's biochemistry is a bit over the top in terms of exam contents (might be due to the fact that I felt biochemistry was probably the least represented subject on my exam) so you might consider skipping it if time's not on your side (and solely using FA/UW).

I'd tell you to try to flag microbiology since that's what I did, however, I've heard wonders about SketchyMicro, so you might want to try that out before starting to flag those topics.

You're doing pretty well, try to cover all of pathology since this really is the bulk of the exam.

 

[Daitong]

@the FC team,

Has anyone ever felt that some of the 'lists' AKA a card where you have what are the characteristics/risk factors for X disease and like 6-7 bullets could be condensed in the sense that maybe 3 of the 6 are highlighted (these are the mainly HY ones) and then the other ones listed as well?

I have trouble memorizing just lists, and it would be beneficial to discern the most high yield from the others.

Have a great break!

 

[Daitong]

Also,

Any thoughts on adding the new FA stuff on healthcare policy, PDSA, etc into FC?

 

[abolt18]

Hello everyone! OMSII here, and I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on my current predicament.

I've been using firecracker religiously since the start of the M2 school year, and I love the resource. My only issue is that our school has a systems based approach where we covered all of Heme/Onc, Cardio, Renal, and Pulmonary during the M1 year. We won't be seeing this material again, so I've been trying to go back and flag what I can, as well as flagging concurrent school subjects. This was a struggle, but I've been working pretty hard during this winter break, and I should have all of those organ systems tagged, along with all of Ortho/Rheum, Neurology, and Psychiatry.

With that said, by my calculations I'll still have only flagged about 465 out of the 1162 (40%) topics by the end of this break. I should have all of the rest of the organ systems flagged as we cover that material with our course work, but that's still only about 60% of the bank flagged before dedicated step studying time begins. The rest of the topics that remain unflagged will be most of the basic sciences. So my question is this - should I keep grinding during second semester until I am able to flag most of the biochemistry/microbiology/etc as well? Or should I focus on those lower yield subjects via different resources?

Thank you!

My opinion, definitely get all of Biochem and micro flagged. It will give you a very strong knowledge for boards just flag a couple subjects a day from them. Physiology was weak so I'd supplement that.

 

[Ophthoseidon]

@the FC team,

Has anyone ever felt that some of the 'lists' AKA a card where you have what are the characteristics/risk factors for X disease and like 6-7 bullets could be condensed in the sense that maybe 3 of the 6 are highlighted (these are the mainly HY ones) and then the other ones listed as well?

I have trouble memorizing just lists, and it would be beneficial to discern the most high yield from the others.

Have a great break!

I agree. It's literally impossible. If I repeat it everyday for a week MAYBE I can list the 10 things. 1 month later, never gonna happen

 

[Daitong]

@FC Any updates on incorporating a '0' option where- similar in Anki- if we REALLY don't know a topic, we press '0' and see it again within 10 or so minutes to really hammer it down?

 

[nabilesmail]

I agree. It's literally impossible. If I repeat it everyday for a week MAYBE I can list the 10 things. 1 month later, never gonna happen

Yup! These are the cards that I think are inefficient. I don't know if its just me but I already have a ton of 1-2s because of shifting into a state that involved studying for an exam week by week (because I fell behind). This meant I would flag/cram all subjects in a week, then move on to the next exam's material that I had skipped for the last 3+ weeks. With 70% flagged, it will take days to see cards I recently rate as 1's (since I'm so backlogged). Without a 0/Ankyish System, I would probably need to see the card every day of the week to have a remote chance of even remembering the list. With the way things are, I'll rate the list card a "1", see it in 5++++ days and literally make little to no progress and repeat it as a "1" again... and again, I think its a waste of time. This is why I want the ability to edit FC Question/Answer cards (on an individual's platform, not everybody elses lol) so I could make the questions a bit more memorable/self-tailored. EX: "What are the 3 GI SX of X Disease? Recall the complication of SX Two and address how this may manifest in 3 more SX" etc. We may give ourselves more hints, but the more unique and specific the questions are the easier it is to categorize the information in your mind and become more efficient (less times needed to see the card before committing it to memory).

Maybe it might be easier to categorize SX to shorten the list?
EX: Nausea/Vomiting/Diarrhea=GI Disturbance (unless the specifics are really needed)

 

[Daitong]

I've been sending them emails and they are great at responding, so give it a shot!

 

[Hemorrage]

I used to be a huge FC fan and advocate but I've officially given up on it. The lack of flexibility and inability for the development team to take into account the concerns of med students is pretty obvious. There's a reason why the 0 option is required. Many cards require that you see it multiple times in a session and in a week. In the current state of FC and in prior versions this is still NOT possible. Maybe it works for some people but not for me. Switching over to Anki did me wonders on my grades.

 

[justabanana]

I used to be a huge FC fan and advocate but I've officially given up on it. The lack of flexibility and inability for the development team to take into account the concerns of med students is pretty obvious. There's a reason why the 0 option is required. Many cards require that you see it multiple times in a session and in a week. In the current state of FC and in prior versions this is still NOT possible. Maybe it works for some people but not for me. Switching over to Anki did me wonders on my grades.

I also moved back to anki. I'll probably go back to FC if they implement a 0 button and a way to delete or edit cards. In its current form I can't recommend it and I definitely won't be re-upping.

 

[nabilesmail]

I also moved back to anki. I'll probably go back to FC if they implement a 0 button and a way to delete or edit cards. In its current form I can't recommend it and I definitely won't be re-upping.

Its not the fix we need, but for the meantime you can click "J" which will skip the card and either at it to the end (if you continue the session to the end) or if you take a break and restart later it will be at the beginning of that new session. I suppose you could skip with J and make an effort to refresh the FC website and start your review again every 20-30 minutes or so.