How do programs use board-score "cutoffs?"

[SJSM001]

Hi everyone,

Quick question for those who may be involved in residency programs or applicant selection.
I will be applying this year and was reviewing the "Results of the 2012 NRMP Program Director Survey" (available here: http://www.nrmp.org/data/programresultsbyspecialty2012.pdf) And noticed this year's data lists that 45% of programs have a "target score" for Step 1 or Step 2 scores, of which the median seems to be right around 220.

I am interested in this because I am battling a step 1 score in the 210's coupled with a step 2 score in the 260's and an otherwise very competitive application (significant research, great LOR's, top notch clinical grades, long-term interest in the field, etc). I've been told I won't have a problem matching and to go ahead and apply to rad onc despite my low step 1 score.

However, seeing this sort of data says otherwise - if my application isn't even going to reach anyone's desk for review because of a computerized screen, it seems like a waste of money.

So my question is, how do programs use these scores? Is it a computer screen, where applicants below this number never have their application reviewed? Is it used in conjunction with the Step 2 score (if available), or on its own? Any way of finding out what programs may use these cutoffs?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[radiaterMike]

This will be so varied, depending on program. In the end, it is a person that looks at your application- which means there is both objectivity and subjectivity.

I suspect that most programs review all applications US schools, and if you have other aspects of your application that are strong, you will get plenty of interviews. There may be some programs that use a hard cut-off for Step I, and there is not much you can do about that. If you feel your application is otherwise strong, and you are a candidate for Top tier programs (which may be more lilely to use strict cut offs given the number of applications they receive?), it may help to rotate at some of these programs.

Hi everyone,

Quick question for those who may be involved in residency programs or applicant selection.
I will be applying this year and was reviewing the "Results of the 2012 NRMP Program Director Survey" (available here: http://www.nrmp.org/data/programresultsbyspecialty2012.pdf) And noticed this year's data lists that 45% of programs have a "target score" for Step 1 or Step 2 scores, of which the median seems to be right around 220.

I am interested in this because I am battling a step 1 score in the 210's coupled with a step 2 score in the 260's and an otherwise very competitive application (significant research, great LOR's, top notch clinical grades, long-term interest in the field, etc). I've been told I won't have a problem matching and to go ahead and apply to rad onc despite my low step 1 score.

However, seeing this sort of data says otherwise - if my application isn't even going to reach anyone's desk for review because of a computerized screen, it seems like a waste of money.

So my question is, how do programs use these scores? Is it a computer screen, where applicants below this number never have their application reviewed? Is it used in conjunction with the Step 2 score (if available), or on its own? Any way of finding out what programs may use these cutoffs?

 

[SJSM001]

In the end, it is a person that looks at your application

Thanks - this is what I was trying to figure out. I wasn't sure if the survey implied 45% of programs used a computerized screen, and no one would ever see my app.

 

[Neuronix]

Thanks - this is what I was trying to figure out. I wasn't sure if the survey implied 45% of programs used a computerized screen, and no one would ever see my app.

We all speculate that some programs do use a computerized screen. Unfortunately, we will never know which programs those are and what those score levels are.

If you are committed to rad onc, I would recommend that you apply to all rad onc programs and have a backup plan in mind.

 

[macbergleton]

that being said from what i have been told, if someone that rotates at one of these programs is outstanding but misses the cut off they can still get an intereview and be on a level playing field.

I would bet that this is generally true. However, a friend of mine,with similar stats, was denied an interview at a program at which he interviewed and received good feedback. He contacted the PD and was told that they have a hard step I cutoff.

So, as neuronix said, apply broadly.

 

[stankem]

Hi everyone,

Quick question for those who may be involved in residency programs or applicant selection.
I will be applying this year and was reviewing the "Results of the 2012 NRMP Program Director Survey" (available here: http://www.nrmp.org/data/programresultsbyspecialty2012.pdf) And noticed this year's data lists that 45% of programs have a "target score" for Step 1 or Step 2 scores, of which the median seems to be right around 220.

I am interested in this because I am battling a step 1 score in the 210's coupled with a step 2 score in the 260's and an otherwise very competitive application (significant research, great LOR's, top notch clinical grades, long-term interest in the field, etc). I've been told I won't have a problem matching and to go ahead and apply to rad onc despite my low step 1 score.

However, seeing this sort of data says otherwise - if my application isn't even going to reach anyone's desk for review because of a computerized screen, it seems like a waste of money.

So my question is, how do programs use these scores? Is it a computer screen, where applicants below this number never have their application reviewed? Is it used in conjunction with the Step 2 score (if available), or on its own? Any way of finding out what programs may use these cutoffs?

If there are particular programs you are interested (more the better) go on rotations. Esp if you heard they interview rotators. If you do a good job you'll overcome the step 1 cutoff. At the very least you'll receive consideration when you might not have made it to the pile otherwise.

 

[radiaterMike]

As stated above, what goes on behind the scenes is unknown. A top tier program that gets a ton of applications may use a strict cut off, but if an applicant is truly spectacular in other regards is a PD really going to say no to an interview? I suspect that your friend may not have left a good impression (despite the 'good feedback'), and the Step I cutoff was an easier excuse for the PD than saying nobody really like you.

I would bet that this is generally true. However, a friend of mine,with similar stats, was denied an interview at a program at which he interviewed and received good feedback. He contacted the PD and was told that they have a hard step I cutoff.

So, as neuronix said, apply broadly.

 

[ramsesthenice]

The other thing to consider is your friend may not have really gotten a good review. There is a real art to writing letters and there is a way to be nice without giving any substance and reviewers know how to pick up on that.

Do what everyone said and apply broadly. If you look at the charting the outcomes data you can see there is no step1 score at which you are doomed.

 

[macbergleton]

The other thing to consider is your friend may not have really gotten a good review. There is a real art to writing letters and there is a way to be nice without giving any substance and reviewers know how to pick up on that.

Do what everyone said and apply broadly. If you look at the charting the outcomes data you can see there is no step1 score at which you are doomed.

Yeah, I'll never know. I have seen him work and he usually impresses. I generally agree with the sentiment of this thread, just wanted to point out that hard cut offs may still apply.

If there is anything I have learned on the interview trail this year, it is that 1) you can't take a rejection personally, because 2) the competition is fierce, and they have to say no to good people. Therefore it is hard to predict how competitive you will really be at any given program. So, apply broadly.