How do you use Uworld? (poll)

[raynor123456]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I'm just curious about how people are utilizing uworld. There is a lot of talk about score prediction based off of uworld percentages, but that seems rather silly considering the variety of ways people can use the uworld qbank.

Input appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[SlaveOfTCMC]

I figure the best approximation of one's score would require simulating as many real life factors as possible... and this includes taking timed, random blocks.

However, this approach necessitates using World as an "end game" resource

 

[winkleweizen]

Ive never had problems with time constraints so im able to get through a block of Uworld questions if I do random untimed in tutor mode. That way i can answer the question and read the answers and annotate right after without having to waste time of going back and reading the question as in timed random.

I figure the practice exams taht I take should be enough practice for random and timed blocks.

 

[da8s0859q]

I do both random and focused, but mostly random.

But I do have to say that I'm not terribly concerned about using my UW percentage to tell me what I'll score on Step 1. That's why I'm taking NBME forms periodically.

 

[ScubaStarved]

Where is the "like a boss" option?

 

[justdoit31]

I did a mixture of random and focused blocks throughout the school year- I have about 300 questions left which I'll do randomly and then reset for timed random blocks now that I'm entering my dedicated study time.

 

[RySerr21]

I did every block timed, but never did 'random' questions. I found that to be not as useful. It annoyed me to get a question wrong simply b/c I hadn't reviewed it yet. So, I would study something, for example biochemistry, for a few days or however long it took me to feel reasonably comfortable with the material. Then I did every UW biochem. Rinse and repeat for every subject in FA. That way, when I missed a question, it was b/c I didnt really understand the concept it was asking about, not b/c I hadn't reviewed it. I thought this worked well - it immediatley pointed out areas that I thought I was good with but for whatever reasons I didn't grasp it the way that they wanted me to. For example, i think i missed every hepatitis question when going through micro. This was something that I thought was pretty straight forward - looking at the graph of the antibodies and antigens and determining at what stage the pt was at in their disease process. So I obviously read the explanations very carefully, went back and studied that material again, and made sure that I was okay with the concept before moving on.

I thought this was a very helpful way to learn - i recommend trying it out!

p.s. the way I was checking my progress was by doing an NBME or UW exam every week. I knew my system was working for me b/c each week my score would go up.

 

[Encephalectomy]

Where is the "like a boss" option?

seriously

 

[lackli]

Question: a lot of people mention going through Uworld twice. If you have not used it for more than 6 months (and don't have the ability to reset) is there any way to prevent repeat questions?

 

[raynor123456]

Question: a lot of people mention going through Uworld twice. If you have not used it for more than 6 months (and don't have the ability to reset) is there any way to prevent repeat questions?

There is an option to use only unused questions.

 

[lackli]

nvm my question was already answered in another thread...I guess I didn't search hard enough the first time.

The idea is to mark all the questions the first time as you are doing them; then the second time you do the questions you can unmark them. This way you have a second method for keeping track of used vs unused questions.

 

[raynor123456]

Thanks for you input, everyone 🙂 As I'm sure is intuitive to many of us, it would appear that the various methods of making ones way through UW is likely going to be the major factor making score prediction uncertain at best.

Having said that, it absolutely makes sense that predictive value could be pulled from UW scores. However, we'd need to gather much more specific data than we have currently. The best I've seen so far was a recent thread which pulled data from a popular IMG forum, but even it had some questionable data points considering it looked at both people who declared their test taking methods as timed, random AND those who didn't mention their method of test-taking.

I'm sure we can all imagine how one might do considerably better on a focused, non-timed study session than random blocks of 46. Of course, the value of UW is definitely in using it as a learning tool, so it would be silly to suggest that anybody use it any other way than what they feel helps them learn best simply for turning it into a diagnostic tool when we already have NBME's for that.

 

[SlaveOfTCMC]

Thanks for you input, everyone 🙂 As I'm sure is intuitive to many of us, it would appear that the various methods of making ones way through UW is likely going to be the major factor making score prediction uncertain at best.

Having said that, it absolutely makes sense that predictive value could be pulled from UW scores. However, we'd need to gather much more specific data than we have currently. The best I've seen so far was a recent thread which pulled data from a popular IMG forum, but even it had some questionable data points considering it looked at both people who declared their test taking methods as timed, random AND those who didn't mention their method of test-taking.

I'm sure we can all imagine how one might do considerably better on a focused, non-timed study session than random blocks of 46. Of course, the value of UW is definitely in using it as a learning tool, so it would be silly to suggest that anybody use it any other way than what they feel helps them learn best simply for turning it into a diagnostic tool when we already have NBME's for that.

Allow me to clarify my stance:

I also used World as a learning tool, but there are only about 2000 questions. Logically, this is not an expansive, end-game source of material from which one uses solely to learn. It is very good to pick up a number of subtleties in differential diagnosis.

My stance is merely if you have the ability to obtain other questionbanks, then one can maximize the value of World by using it as a) a learning tool, b) a diagnostic tool (though of limited value), and c) simulating real life testing conditions.

That is all.

 

[raynor123456]

Allow me to clarify my stance:

I also used World as a learning tool, but there are only about 2000 questions. Logically, this is not an expansive, end-game source of material from which one uses solely to learn. It is very good to pick up a number of subtleties in differential diagnosis.

My stance is merely if you have the ability to obtain other questionbanks, then one can maximize the value of World by using it as a) a learning tool, b) a diagnostic tool (though of limited value), and c) simulating real life testing conditions.

That is all.

I hear ya. Honestly, I got it late, and won't have much time to "learn" from it. I'm primarily using it to get used to thinking for the test and to get used to the timing.

But, having said that, I 'now' see its value as a learning tool. The predictive feature would be nice too, but it's just confounded by too many factors. For now, I figure if I'm doing better than average on random, timed, blocks then I'll probably pass ^_^

 

[raynor123456]

Just in case anyone is interested, I just checked and have confirmed that UWorld actually INCLUDES repeat questions into your cumulative average.

 

[fuzzywuz]

I guess the consensus is that Uworld is a better representation of the real Step 1.

But all in all, is it harder or easier or fair? What's a good respectable percentage?

My goal is a 230. I've only used UWorld for a day. I did about 90 questions today. I'm currently at ~75% overall... I know the sample size is small, but I can't help but wonder!!!

 

[da8s0859q]

I guess the consensus is that Uworld is a better representation of the real Step 1.

But all in all, is it harder or easier or fair? What's a good respectable percentage?

My goal is a 230. I've only used UWorld for a day. I did about 90 questions today. I'm currently at ~75% overall... I know the sample size is small, but I can't help but wonder!!!

Opinions vary on that first part. A survey of a class preceding ours said that almost half of them thought that UW was harder than Step 1, a similar number said it was the same difficulty, and a handful said that UW was easier than Step.

Going by the CBSE, every shelf exam I've taken, and one NBME form and counting, I really feel like Step is going to be easier than UW.

As for respectable percentages: I've heard from more than a few people who spend a decent amount of time involved with this stuff that a ~65% on random blocks can land you in the 240 range. RapplixGmed actually did a statistical breakdown of what he could find on another site, and he came up with about a 70% (here) -- though some of the posts used for data didn't clarify HOW they used UW.

 

[RySerr21]

I guess the consensus is that Uworld is a better representation of the real Step 1.

But all in all, is it harder or easier or fair? What's a good respectable percentage?

My goal is a 230. I've only used UWorld for a day. I did about 90 questions today. I'm currently at ~75% overall... I know the sample size is small, but I can't help but wonder!!!

my experience was that UW was significantly harder for a large majority of the questions.

 

[raynor123456]

my experience was that UW was significantly harder for a large majority of the questions.

For what it's worth, I'm typically a "concepts" guy and do well in all of the concepts type of courses and subjects. I thought my particular exam was on par with UW in terms of concepts, but also had a significant increases in nity-grity details that you were required to know to answer the question correctly at the end of the conceptual patient presentation.

 

[da8s0859q]

For what it's worth, I'm typically a "concepts" guy and do well in all of the concepts type of courses and subjects. I thought my particular exam was on par with UW in terms of concepts, but also had a significant increases in nity-grity details that you were required to know to answer the question correctly at the end of the conceptual patient presentation.

Just how nitty-gritty are we talking?

 

[raynor123456]

Just how nitty-gritty are we talking?

Not like you probably got in some of your courses, but enough to be annoying--I took Goljan seriously when he said this was a test of mechanisms and that's how I studied, but I think that at this point his claim is an exaggeration at best and currently inaccurate at worst.

E.g. Take two really similar presentations, blur the lines as much as possible, and then expect the test-taker to find the "one" word that makes the difference; Present a cancer w/ a million known associated risk factors, present them all as answer choices, then ask which one is the "most" likely cause; Give a renal patient case that looks like a "most common cause" (diffuse membranous glomerulosclerosis) then blur the lines by providing an image that could go either way and then further complicate by providing both diffuse membranous and diffuse membranoproliferative as possible answer choices; Take a gene that I've never heard of before, FOXO3, and then ask mechanism-specific details. Stick a needle in the butt and be able to identify exactly which structures it might hit on it's way through tissue. Take a crappy, pixelated picture of a brain stem, point at an area that you're having a hard time making out, and essentially ask which CN an arrow is pointing at. There were tons of questions that, IMO, were very annoying.