\
Most derm residents will admit the boards have an extreme amount of useless trivia which do not make you a better practitioner.
This is the "conventional wisdom" that really isn't true. I think I used to feel that way at one point when I was a resident. But as time as passed, I realized that, in general, people who do better on the boards are better dermatologists. It's probably not as much a cause-effect relationship as the writers of the boards would like, and maybe people who do better at the boards are just more intelligent and capable, so they will also happen to be better clinicians.
But I do think that the stuff you study for boards does help you be a better dermatologist at least to some extent. In studying for the boards you will learn a lot of minutiae, but these things do come up in daily practice now and then, and knowing them is what separates a good dermatologist from a great one.
More importantly though, the problem with this line of thinking (i.e., good at boards doesn't necessarily mean good dermatologist) though is that it suggests that there's a bunch of great dermatologists out there who just do really badly on board type of exams. These types of people are actually uncommon in my experience. I've never met someone who crushed the mock boards (the real board is pass/fail, so you don't know how well you do), who was a bad dermatologist and I've never met someone who got below the 20th percentile on the mock boards who I would describe as a very strong clinically.
Now, don't get me wrong. These people who fall in the lower percentiles are normally fine (after all they got into derm so they've got to be somewhat capable), but they are generally not as good as their peers who do better on the boards.