How indicative are course grades of board scores?

[SangriaSalsa]

Is there a good correlation between top half of class during preclinical years = top half of class on board performance?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[shadowlightfox]

Depends on how well your school prepares you for boards. If your school doesn't prepare you for boards very well, then there's really not much correlation.

 

[Black Coffee 24/7]

Is there a good correlation between top half of class during preclinical years = top half of class on board performance?

If your % average is 95+, you will score at least high 230s on Step 1. For people w/ 80-93% for my school, there is minimal correlation.

 

[austintr]

If your % average is 95+, you will score at least high 230s on Step 1. For people w/ 80-93% for my school, there is minimal correlation.

This extrapolates to board scores obviously being inversely related to how much classmates enjoy interacting with you.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

There is a general trend that doing well in class leads to increased board scores. Like most studies like this though the results are only generalizable to populations and for any one individual the correlation doesn't really exist. People who get As in class get 250s and also 210s, some people who get Cs do the same thing.

I would never assume that "top half of the class equates to top half of the class board performance." Your school grades compare you only to your classmates because curriculums are so variable, boards compare you to every medical student in the country.

 

[Goro]

Is there a good correlation between top half of class during preclinical years = top half of class on board performance?

Yes!!!!!!!!

 

[ciestar]

My friend literally got honors in every single pre-clinical course except one and didn’t even get the average Step 1 score.

OTOH, she has friends who didnt do as well in courses and focused more on board prep and one broke a 250..

So, for DO schools I really think it depends on how well they prepare you for NBME-style questions.

 

[zero0]

Despite the administration's best efforts to manipulate the data, no, there is still virtually no correlation, much less causation. DO schools do a **** job of preparing you for USMLE. This is a known fact. Adjust accordingly and neglect class if need be.

 

[Chibucks15]

Eh we have an average around 230 USMLE (from what I've heard, no clue on pass rate) and a 590 comlex average with 100% pass rate so not all schools prepare you poorly. But there was an R2 of like 0.6 if you kept above a 3.4 you'd be much more likely to be at least around average in an analysis ours ran. So in general, there isn't much of a correlation, but its not as if they're actively trying to screw their students over

 

[sab3156]

Eh we have an average around 230 USMLE (from what I've heard, no clue on pass rate) and a 590 comlex average with 100% pass rate so not all schools prepare you poorly. But there was an R2 of like 0.6 if you kept above a 3.4 you'd be much more likely to be at least around average in an analysis ours ran. So in general, there isn't much of a correlation, but its not as if they're actively trying to screw their students over

The Step 1 average you are quoting is a highly skewed and biased statistic. Therefore, using it as evidence for "not all [DO] schools prepare you poorly" is highly dishonest.

 

[Chibucks15]

The Step 1 average you are quoting is a highly skewed and biased statistic. Therefore, using it as evidence for "not all [DO] schools prepare you poorly" is highly dishonest.

Do you have more concrete statistics? Because otherwise calling me highly dishonest doesn't seem to be warranted.

And I'm gonna go ahead and assume even though Steps are harder and there's no denying that, a 590 COMLEX average (80th percentile) bodes well for preparation for boards to at least get close to the national average don't ya think? The scores aren't usually 30 percentile points differences. But hey, DO schools all suck right? I'm pretty content with prep if it can get me those scores on average but sorry to be dishonest

 

[Chibucks15]

Unless your school forces all your students to take the Step 1, the average you are quoting is a highly skewed and biased statistic. Therefore, using it as evidence for "not all [DO] schools prepare you poorly" is questionable at best.

way to edit your original post, in which you didn't include the beginning part and went straight into calling me highly dishonest, which you also toned down on your second post. Sneaky sneaky.

I never once said that it was the end all be all and my school does great. All I said, was that our COMLEX averages are high, from what I hear our step averages aren't too shabby either even though they don't get published. So I'll take my 80th percentile COMLEX and hope to god the big bad USMLE doesn't drop my score 30 percentile points. Cmon man

 

[sab3156]

Do you have more concrete statistics? Because otherwise calling me highly dishonest doesn't seem to be warranted.

So if the Step 1 data is so questionable, why are you even talking about it? It's annoying when people continue to quote highly questionable statistics to claim that their DO schools prepare them well for Step 1.

And I'm gonna go ahead and assume even though Steps are harder and there's no denying that, a 590 COMLEX average (80th percentile) bodes well for preparation for boards to at least get close to the national average don't ya think? The scores aren't usually 30 percentile points differences. But hey, DO schools all suck right? I'm pretty content with prep if it can get me those scores on average but sorry to be dishonest

You are actually flat out wrong. Case in point: RVU forces all students to take Step 1. Let's take a quick look at RVU's percentiles (2017):

COMLEX Level 1 percentile: 66
USMLE Step 1 percentile: 30

Difference of 36 here (please note before you twist this to mean that "oh yeah my school will get at the national average on Step 1 if they have 80th percentile on COMLEX Level 1", this is just illustrating a drastic difference of 54.5%).

Here is the data for you:
http://www.rvu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/RVU-2017-Institutional-Snapshot.pdf

Step 1 percentiles reflect a much stronger pool of students (MD students). The average DO student is nothing compared to the average MD student when it comes to Step 1. There will be a huge difference. Always. I don't understand this blind trust in your school.

way to edit your original post, in which you didn't include the beginning part and went straight into calling me highly dishonest, which you also toned down on your second post. Sneaky sneaky.

Changed it back for you. I guess it's not dishonest if you have no understanding of statistics, so maybe I set the bar too high. But it's really just common sense to realize that the percentiles between a test taken by only DO students will simply not compare to a test taken primarily by a much stronger test taking pool made up of mainly US MD students.

 

[shadowlightfox]

OP's question is still flawed. Or at least the potential conclusion he might make from having an answer to that question is flawed. He shouldn't be asking whether there's a correlation to begin with. Rather, he should be asking if doing well in class will lead to doing well in boards.

To give an extreme example to illustrate my point: If you were to make the med students take an IQ test, I'm sure there will be a very strong correlation between what you get on that test and what you get on the boards, but to then conclude that IQ tests prepares you for boards is stupid.

Now just replace IQ tests with whatever curriculum your med school has.

tl;dr correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Chibucks15]

So if the Step 1 data is so questionable, why are you even talking about it? It's annoying when people continue to quote highly questionable statistics to claim that their DO schools prepare them well for Step 1.



You are actually flat out wrong. Case in point: RVU forces all students to take Step 1. Let's take a quick look at RVU's percentiles:

COMLEX Level 1 percentile: 66
USMLE Step 1 percentile: 30

Difference of 36 here.

Here is the data for you:
http://www.rvu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/RVU-2017-Institutional-Snapshot.pdf

Step 1 percentiles reflect a much stronger pool of students (MD students). The average DO student is nothing compared to the average MD student when it comes to Step 1. There will be a huge difference. Always.



Changed it back for you. I guess it's not dishonest if you have no understanding of statistics, so maybe I set the bar too high.

Easy there keyboard warrior. Going straight for the calling me an idiot card. Classic move!!!

I was unaware that RVUs stats were like that thanks for letting me know. I don't normally keep tabs on schools that aren't my own, especially newer ones. Again, I never once said that my data was concrete and I explained that it was hearsay. I did not once say that it included everyone, simply the ones that were going to take it. Please show me where I said it included everyone and where I am so wrong and have no comprehension of statistics.

I only brought it up because I assumed I would immediately get questioned by you about STEP averages. Cuz the almight sab is the only one that can be correct and he knows all things about every school and the DO profession as a whole, I must be an idiot not fit to be in med school.

Back to the original intent of my post. The only thing I quoted as concrete was our COMLEX averages and pass rates, which for the most part will bode well for the people who take both exams. I am in no way saying that it 100% translates into a good step, but there is some decent evidence that they may still be alright. I can tell you a good chunk, if not most, of our class takes the exam, but I am unsure on the exact numbers.

 

[deleted645092]

To bring this back on track, OP, it depends on the context of your grades. If you work your a$$ off and pull 10 hour days but still barely pass classes, the safe money would be that you do poorly on boards. But if you aren't putting the effort into class because you're focusing solely on board prep the whole time, then there is less of a correlation. I believe this partly because I'm a member of the camp that believes "class prep = board prep" and partly because your board prep strategy may or may not adequately prepare you for boards, so your performance may end up going to either extreme.

 

[Neopolymath]

It's almost like administration doesn't understand correlation, causation, confounding variables, perspective, statistics in general etc....

OP, do your best and use the online resources to understand what it takes to get a good score (intelligence/test taking ability not withstanding because you can't modulate those easily). You are asking a stupid question. It isn't stupid because it's obvious/simple, but because the information you will get from the answer doesn't change anything. So why even ask it? How would your approach to school change if I told you it's correlated (it's a relatively soft correlation at best)? Are you going to suddenly flip a switch and try hard and jump 10 points each exam?

 

[TheBoneDoctah]

Yes, there is a correlation.

As a whole, the better you do in class (the more you know), the more prepared you are going to be starting board study, and the more prepared you will be taking boards. Sure, there are going to be stories of students in the top 10% scoring low, and lower 10% scoring high, but OVERALL there is a correlation. All the people that I know that I have spoken with from the top 10% of my class scored 240+. The people in the top 5% scored 250-270.

If you are #270/270 in your class, don't expect to magically inject all the information from the last two years into your head, instantly learn test taking strategy, and then score 270.

My advice is to bust your ass in the first two years and learn as much as you can. You will be much more prepared when it comes to boards.

 

[shadowlightfox]

Yes, there is a correlation.

As a whole, the better you do in class (the more you know), the more prepared you are going to be starting board study, and the more prepared you will be taking boards. Sure, there are going to be stories of students in the top 10% scoring low, and lower 10% scoring high, but OVERALL there is a correlation. All the people that I know that I have spoken with from the top 10% of my class scored 240+. The people in the top 5% scored 250-270.

If you are #270/270 in your class, don't expect to magically inject all the information from the last two years into your head, instantly learn test taking strategy, and then score 270.

My advice is to bust your ass in the first two years and learn as much as you can. You will be much more prepared when it comes to boards.

I don't completely agree with this advice. This kind of advice is if you are learning board materials up until the dedicated, which is not necessarily the case in every school.

I'm not saying don't do well in your classes, or that a 270th ranking person can do well on boards, but to outright make a hardline statement that doing well on your class exams is setting yourself up for good board scores is making the assumption that every med school is run the same where every lecture is preparing you for boards. I can tell you from firsthand experience that it can be quite the opposite.

You should tailor your strategy specifically to how your school run things. Instead of asking on a forum, you should ask the upperclassmen in your school who crushed the boards whether or not doing well in classes helped them achieve a high board score. The reality is that in some schools, studying for your classes, because it's very deviating from board materials, will not only poorly reflect your board scores, but if you spend more time on classes, it will eat up into learning board materials, i.e. set yourself up for a lower board score. And the converse is true.

 

[Robotfishbrain]

I hear that the correlation is high, but never ever do I see a source cited. Could those who say yes to this question link to a study?

 

[Goro]

My friend literally got honors in every single pre-clinical course except one and didn’t even get the average Step 1 score.

OTOH, she has friends who didnt do as well in courses and focused more on board prep and one broke a 250..

So, for DO schools I really think it depends on how well they prepare you for NBME-style questions.

Ahh, anecdata. Where would we be without it?

There is published data from multiple MD and DO schools that the single best indicator of Boards scores is preclinical GPA. Obviously, people who slack off and do nothing but board study will have a low GPA but probably will have good Boards scores. NBME shelf exams are also good predictors of COMLEX at our school.

EDIT: sorry, but I do not have sources handy. SDN is not a journal submission to Lancet.

 

[ciestar]

Ahh, anecdata. Where would we be without it?

There is published data from multiple MD and DO schools that the single best indicator of Boards scores is preclinical GPA. Obviously, people who slack off and do nothing but board study will have a low GPA but probably will have good Boards scores. NBME shelf exams are also good predictors of COMLEX at our school.

EDIT: sorry, but I do not have sources handy. SDN is not a journal submission to Lancet.

Anecdotes are the best, though, aren’t they?

And yes, I’ve seen that. My school talked about it a lot and I struggled a lot through the first two years and my step 1 sucked (more anecdotes!).

But same friend knocked the snot out of their level 1...
so, their school did a wonderful job preparing its students for Level 1.

 

[ARK1234]

I do constantly hear the medical school performance correlation with board scores a lot at my (and a lot of my friends') schools, but I'm not sure where I would stand on this issue. I wasn't exactly a smart medical student, and I was def in the lower ranks of my class (although never really in danger of failing), but I did much better on the boards than my med school performance would have suggested. Granted, I will say though that I never really thought about this specific correlation as a med student. I admit I struggled many times but I just tried to do my best and accepted that I end up where I end up. I did study very hard for my boards though, or at least tried to maximally expand my knowledge base in the limited time that I had to study.
That being said, after having taken the boards and being on rotations, I do kind of understand where this correlation comes from. I think that people who do very well in school, will naturally have a more solid understanding of general concepts and principles (and maybe even a lot of the details that we have to know for boards as well...), and are able integrate better large amounts of information needed to do well on the boards. I think this was a consistent trend for our school, and I do hear this from my friends at their schools too. But again, as I said, I never really put much focus into this correlation to begin with. I'd recommend to not worry about it and just do the best you can so you are able to learn and retain the most amount of information regardless of how well you think it will be reflected on your boards.

 

[Black Coffee 24/7]

Doing well on rotation has nothing to do with your acumen. It's 90% of how well you play with others and the ability to learn and adapt based on immediate situational changes.

 

[ARK1234]

Doing well on rotation has nothing to do with your acumen. It's 90% of how well you play with others and the ability to learn and adapt based on immediate situational changes.

Haha I forgot to put the word "now" before "being on rotations" - just to refer to the fact that I finished boards and have successfully moved on to rotations. Didn't necessarily mean to show any correlation between rotations and acumen or anything like that. But totally agree with your post!

 

[TheBoneDoctah]

I don't completely agree with this advice. This kind of advice is if you are learning board materials up until the dedicated, which is not necessarily the case in every school.

I'm not saying don't do well in your classes, or that a 270th ranking person can do well on boards, but to outright make a hardline statement that doing well on your class exams is setting yourself up for good board scores is making the assumption that every med school is run the same where every lecture is preparing you for boards. I can tell you from firsthand experience that it can be quite the opposite.

You should tailor your strategy specifically to how your school run things. Instead of asking on a forum, you should ask the upperclassmen in your school who crushed the boards whether or not doing well in classes helped them achieve a high board score. The reality is that in some schools, studying for your classes, because it's very deviating from board materials, will not only poorly reflect your board scores, but if you spend more time on classes, it will eat up into learning board materials, i.e. set yourself up for a lower board score. And the converse is true.

I'm not giving specific advice here. I am simply saying that, ON AVERAGE, people who do better in their preclinical years do better on boards, OVERALL. People can sit here all day and say that their school doesn't teach to boards, but ultimately (especially in DO schools) board studying falls on you. If you are someone who usually does well in classes (which takes dedication, drive, smarts, test taking ability, etc), you are most likely going to do well on boards because you are just going to apply those same traits to board studying. I also never said that if you do well in your class you will for sure do well on boards. I said that the harder you study during the first two years, the more knowledge you will have when starting to study for boards. This is common sense. Someone who busted a** during biochemistry (for example) and has everything memorized going into board studying is going to have a much easier time honing in on the relevant board material when it comes time for that. If you have 3 months study time for boards and you have 70% of material down already, you are WAY ahead of your classmate who slacked off and knows 10% of the material. Therefore, you can use the 3 months to jack up your score instead of trying to learn the basics.

When people keep saying that their school curriculum deviates from board material, can you please give an example of what you mean? Over the last two years, I have heard so many people saying that their school doesn't teach to boards in their first year of medical school (or even second year), yet they have no concept of what is on boards. Just because something isn't in First Aid doesn't mean it's not relevant to Step1/Comlex1. There were many questions on my Step that wasn't in any review source that I only knew because of class. That's why I am saying that learning as much as you can during the year, then taking that knowledge and kinda hone in on what's super important by doing a ton of board questions is the key. You don't have to agree with me...this is just my opinion.

 

[Neopolymath]

I don't completely agree with this advice. This kind of advice is if you are learning board materials up until the dedicated, which is not necessarily the case in every school.

I'm not saying don't do well in your classes, or that a 270th ranking person can do well on boards, but to outright make a hardline statement that doing well on your class exams is setting yourself up for good board scores is making the assumption that every med school is run the same where every lecture is preparing you for boards. I can tell you from firsthand experience that it can be quite the opposite.

You should tailor your strategy specifically to how your school run things. Instead of asking on a forum, you should ask the upperclassmen in your school who crushed the boards whether or not doing well in classes helped them achieve a high board score. The reality is that in some schools, studying for your classes, because it's very deviating from board materials, will not only poorly reflect your board scores, but if you spend more time on classes, it will eat up into learning board materials, i.e. set yourself up for a lower board score. And the converse is true.

This is one of the few absolute truths that has been said in this thread and another reason this question is stupid. At my school, you will be embarrassed by Step 1 if you take the lecture slides as gospel. During one particular term, I was shocked to see how much of FA info wasn't even mentioned tangentially. Then during the next term I was wondering who decided I need to be a PhD scientist in that subject. So in one year I had a term that my grades understated my abilities and one that absolutely overstated them as well. Apparently, other schools aren't like that (lucky them!). This barely delves in to the idea that some school's strategy is heavily weighted toward Comlex heavy topics only. Kids at my school could tell you every bug and drug ever, but couldn't tell you jack **** about biochem. Guess which one is emphasized on Step 1 but not Comlex.

Are they correlated? Maybe, sometimes, sort of. Who cares? It's not going to affect whether you try at school because, well, you are in medical school and you better be working...

I'm not giving specific advice here. I am simply saying that, ON AVERAGE, people who do better in their preclinical years do better on boards, OVERALL. People can sit here all day and say that their school doesn't teach to boards, but ultimately (especially in DO schools) board studying falls on you. If you are someone who usually does well in classes (which takes dedication, drive, smarts, test taking ability, etc), you are most likely going to do well on boards because you are just going to apply those same traits to board studying. I also never said that if you do well in your class you will for sure do well on boards. I said that the harder you study during the first two years, the more knowledge you will have when starting to study for boards. This is common sense. Someone who busted a** during biochemistry (for example) and has everything memorized going into board studying is going to have a much easier time honing in on the relevant board material when it comes time for that. If you have 3 months study time for boards and you have 70% of material down already, you are WAY ahead of your classmate who slacked off and knows 10% of the material. Therefore, you can use the 3 months to jack up your score instead of trying to learn the basics.

When people keep saying that their school curriculum deviates from board material, can you please give an example of what you mean? Over the last two years, I have heard so many people saying that their school doesn't teach to boards in their first year of medical school (or even second year), yet they have no concept of what is on boards. Just because something isn't in First Aid doesn't mean it's not relevant to Step1/Comlex1. There were many questions on my Step that wasn't in any review source that I only knew because of class. That's why I am saying that learning as much as you can during the year, then taking that knowledge and kinda hone in on what's super important by doing a ton of board questions is the key. You don't have to agree with me...this is just my opinion.

At my school you will do poorly if you only use the PPTs. You will not know so many topics you should know cold. I know that isn't the example usually given, but I think it is important to mention. I also notice on here that a lot of DO schools have much higher test averages than my school generally does and so I would bet a lot of naive students think they are ok because they are getting a solid B on their exams because it says "hey I got a B on a medical school exam and am doing average!." If anything, I think the blanket statement about DO school should be that students should read a far greater breadth of material than their curriculum teaches not necessarily depth.

The whole statement about them being correlated just seems unnecessary though. How does it change how you approach school? It's like one of those studies where everyone wonders why they even did a study on it. I am close to a legitimate expert on a specific car engine. Is it surprising that I could adequately rebuild a different car engine relatively easily?

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

People who are all “but the studies show” need to realize a few things: 1. Correlation is not causation. The people who are at the top of the class ahead of me were also the people who spent far more time studying during dedicated, meaning, good students are just good students. 2. These studies largely look at specific schools, and curricula vary widely. 3. These study results are also largely useless to any given individual.

Honestly the only way you can predict your success on boards is to PUT IN THE WORK. Do well in class, but do not assume that will equate to board success. Just be a good student

 

[TheBoneDoctah]

People who are all “but the studies show” need to realize a few things: 1. Correlation is not causation. The people who are at the top of the class ahead of me were also the people who spent far more time studying during dedicated, meaning, good students are just good students. 2. These studies largely look at specific schools, and curricula vary widely. 3. These study results are also largely useless to any given individual.

Honestly the only way you can predict your success on boards is to PUT IN THE WORK. Do well in class, but do not assume that will equate to board success. Just be a good student

This is what I was trying to say...but it was said more eloquently by you. LOL

 

[Goro]

People who are all “but the studies show” need to realize a few things: 1. Correlation is not causation. The people who are at the top of the class ahead of me were also the people who spent far more time studying during dedicated, meaning, good students are just good students. 2. These studies largely look at specific schools, and curricula vary widely. 3. These study results are also largely useless to any given individual.

Honestly the only way you can predict your success on boards is to PUT IN THE WORK. Do well in class, but do not assume that will equate to board success. Just be a good student

So are you going to tell your patients with a blood sugar 300 that they could go ahead and eat all the ice cream they want?

You can "correlate and causation" all you want but multiple medical schools with different curricula all report the same thing when they do these studies on the effect of preclinical GPA and board scores

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

So are you going to tell your patients with a blood sugar 300 that they could go ahead and eat all the ice cream they want?

You can "correlate and causation" all you want but multiple medical schools with different curricula all report the same thing when they do these studies on the effect of preclinical GPA and board scores

Yeah Goro that argument is crap and you know it. Try harder.

 

[shadowlightfox]

When people keep saying that their school curriculum deviates from board material, can you please give an example of what you mean? Over the last two years, I have heard so many people saying that their school doesn't teach to boards in their first year of medical school (or even second year), yet they have no concept of what is on boards. Just because something isn't in First Aid doesn't mean it's not relevant to Step1/Comlex1.

You're asking something that's way too easy for me. One simple example. I could write a whole book about this. My school literally spends more time teaching stuff that come after boards rather than stuff for the boards. Imagine the resources you are using in your third year (onlinemeded etc), except not as well taught, or even all that relevant if you're not pursuing a residency in that field. Put it another way: You normally are not responsible for knowing these stuff, or even applying these stuff until you're a resident in those fields. Hell, my school literally spent more time going over the types of surgeries and stents they use in orthopedic surgeries, and spent literally 4 hours on the types of wheelchairs and canes instead of having a dedicated pharm lectures on antiepileptics, antimicrobials, or drugs to combat HIV, or even the bone pathologies that would prompt an orthopedic surgeon to have all the types of surgeries for...

Also, sure, you are right, none of us know what exactly is going to be on the boards. But look at it this way: At least in my school, the fact that there is an extreme disconnect and lack of overlap between what the first aid, pathoma, sketchy, etc expects us to know, and what the school's lectures expect us to know, is it really surprising to you afterwards that we are concluding that our school is not helping us out?

Based on your comments, it seems to me that the lectures at your school adequately supplements very well to the holy trinity of boards resources, and I'm glad because it shows that not all med schools are run by incompetent administrators. But you really need to understand that it's different for every med school.

Also, regarding the rest of your post, I agree to that. Students who are driven can do well in class, and can translate to using that same drive to study for boards properly and do well on it. But even that can be circumstantial. In my school, because of the extreme dichotomy in differences between boards materials and school material, the reality at my school is that you can only choose to invest in one, not both. If you try to be a "good student" and study hard for the classes, you are not studying for the boards whatsoever, and you will not do well in boards. Likewise, if you study hard for the board materials, it does eat up into your time to study class materials. Everyone who did well in my school all agreed that simply studying for your classes second year does not correlate to boards. With the exception of few since they are practically the einsteins of our med school, they all had to give up studying classes for the sake of studying for boards, and they advised all the lowerclassmen to do the same.

 

[libertyyne]

There are a few studies that indicate moderate to strong correlation between preclincal gpa and step 1 scores. These studies obviously have issues in generalizing to every institution with different corricula etc. There is also moderate correlation reported between performance on preclinical nbme subject exams and step 1. With the highest being the CBSE. That being said only your schools internal data can really tell you how predictive your preclinical gpa is to board scores.

It doesn't take a particularly large leap of faith to state that people who bust their behinds during preclincal tend to be the same people who bust their behind for boards. Or that good test takers may do well on preclinical tests and boards.
Obviously it not 100% predictive because there will always be outliers. If you have been doing board prep hardcore during the entire preclinical and suffering on school exams you probably will do better compared to what your pre-clinical predicts, but not sure by how much. On the other hand if you have been taking it easy expecting to learn and memorize all of basic science in dedicated you are going to have a really bad time.

 

[Goro]

There are a few studies that indicate moderate to strong correlation between preclincal gpa and step 1 scores. These studies obviously have issues in generalizing to every institution with different corricula etc. There is also moderate correlation reported between performance on preclinical nbme subject exams and step 1. With the highest being the CBSE. That being said only your schools internal data can really tell you how predictive your preclinical gpa is to board scores.
View attachment 239678

It doesn't take a particularly large leap of faith to state that people who bust their behinds during preclincal tend to be the same people who bust their behind for boards. Or that good test takers may do well on preclinical tests and boards.
Obviously it not 100% predictive because there will always be outliers. If you have been doing board prep hardcore during the entire preclinical and suffering on school exams you probably will do better compared to what your pre-clinical predicts, but not sure by how much. On the other hand if you have been taking it easy expecting to learn and memorize all of basic science in dedicated you are going to have a really bad time.

/thread!!!

 

[Scrubs101]

Would be cool to compile all of the available data from schools regarding gpa/percentile->boards and interpret the ability of each schools curriculum to prepare for boards, perhaps even add variables like hours spent in class, amount of dedicated time, etc into it.

Theres a moderate correlation between percentile and board scores at my school, extrapolating any further than that cant be done.

What i can say is there is a much higher correlation between percentile and comlex than percentile and usmle, which leads me to believe that there is such as thing as “teaching towards the comlex” even in science classes. But I cant directly comfirm this obviously because who knows maybe the high percentile peeps are just really good at omm, though i doubt it since i dont think omm is calculated in our ranks.

http://com.msu.edu/Students/Academi...ine Academic Documents/Why Grades Matter.pdf

http://www.com.msu.edu/Students/Boa...ic-Medical-Students-Take-the-USMLE-Step-1.pdf

 

[shadowlightfox]

These studies obviously have issues in generalizing to every institution with different corricula etc.

This is why I tell people who post topics like these that instead of posting on a forum with this question, where you're more prone to getting generalized and even inaccurate info, you're better off asking upperclassmen at your school instead.

There are some things that just aren't worth asking on a forum...

 

[libertyyne]

This is why I tell people who post topics like these that instead of posting on a forum with this question, where you're more prone to getting generalized and even inaccurate info, you're better off asking upperclassmen at your school instead.

There are some things that just aren't worth asking on a forum...

Asking upperclassmen may provide good results, but in all honesty there is sampling bias and is prone to just as much error as using the literature. when you are an m1 and taking advice from an m2 what is the point? that person hasnt even sat for step. I imagine when you are an m3 you care very little about step and conveniently block out all the pain and suffering you went through in preclincal.

At the end of the day you ask yourself this:
can I study for step and class together ? The answer is usually yes.

In all likelihood the way the literature pans out you are more likely to do better if you do well in preclinical courses. This doesnt mean you cant do well on step without doing well in class. It just means if I had to place a bet on who is going to do better on boards I would probably bet on the person doing well in class. I havent encountered many people complain that they spent too much time studying for class and that negatively impacted boards.

Here are the two options.
1. Try to do well in preclinical classes and boards
2. Try to focus on board material.

In senario One the worst case senario is you do poorly on boards but you still have a high class rank .
In the second scenario you definitely will have a poor class rank and you may end up with poor board score as well.

You get to decide which option you are going to take and the related worse case senarios associated with that.

 

[shadowlightfox]

Asking upperclassmen may provide good results, but in all honesty there is sampling bias and is prone to just as much error as using the literature. when you are an m1 and taking advice from an m2 what is the point?

I should've clarified. I meant to say M3 and beyond. It's when you are an M2 that you should start listening to M3's who already got their board results back.

 

[libertyyne]

I should've clarified. I meant to say M3 and beyond. It's when you are an M2 that you should start listening to M3's who already got their board results back.

thats the rub tho, your study methods may not match what the m3 did. The m3 may have aced classes and done well on boards. Or done poorly on classes and done well on boards. They may exaggerate how much attention they didnt pay to the classes . How many m3's are you talking to that did not do well in classes and did not do well on boards, or who did do well on classes and did not do well on boards. You are basically listening to an anecdote at that point. If you feel comfortable making that decision based on talking to an m3 thats up to you. I personally would not make changes to study plans based on that.

 

[Scrubs101]

thats the rub tho, your study methods may not match what the m3 did. The m3 may have aced classes and done well on boards. Or done poorly on classes and done well on boards. They may exaggerate how much attention they didnt pay to the classes . How many m3's are you talking to that did not do well in classes and did not do well on boards, or who did do well on classes and did not do well on boards. You are basically listening to an anecdote at that point. If you feel comfortable making that decision based on talking to an m3 thats up to you. I personally would not make changes to study plans based on that.

Agreed with this^^

Within about 2 days i talked to two different M3s at my school, both said they did great on boards, one said focus on killing classes and the other said completely ignore classes and focus on boards. Its all about just finding what works for you most of the time.

 

[shadowlightfox]

thats the rub tho, your study methods may not match what the m3 did. The m3 may have aced classes and done well on boards. Or done poorly on classes and done well on boards. They may exaggerate how much attention they didnt pay to the classes . How many m3's are you talking to that did not do well in classes and did not do well on boards, or who did do well on classes and did not do well on boards. You are basically listening to an anecdote at that point. If you feel comfortable making that decision based on talking to an m3 thats up to you. I personally would not make changes to study plans based on that.

Of course anecdotes by themselves have no value, and if you only ask one or two people, you're not getting much info with value. I'm not saying go talk to a random 3rd year and you're done. Continue gathering information, and if you start noticing a major common denominator, you have made a progress, and you can start exploring that commonality. Thus I disagree with you when you say there's a lack of value in asking upperclassmen.

Maybe in your school the situation has so much grey area around it that you believe the upperclassmen's experiences are iffy and that some students in your class did find the curriculum helpful, and that is why you are telling people that you need to figure out for yourself what works and what doesn't and that the correlation exists. And there's nothing wrong with what you said....IF I'm in your school.

But I'm not in your school, and you need to understand that unlike your school with a lot of grey areas, other schools may already have enough black and white situation for them to wrangle with, one that includes something you may not be used to seeing. Unlike your school, my school actually has been known by everyone, even among the faculty members to not have any correlation. The lecturers themselves have even touted that we should be spending more time on more important stuff instead of listening to their lectures, contrary to what the school administrators have us believe. There is really no need to experiment with the experience, or to ascribe everything that you said to students in my school. We already found a common denominator, and we already are making decisions based on the situation at our school. We don't need to debate about the whole merits of "correlation of class studying with board studying" or "is our curriculum working" at our school. Maybe at your school these discussions are noteworthy, but here at mine, it's useless and our mantra has already been established.

Also, again, what's wrong with asking upperclassmen for advice, just as long as you are smart about it and ask enough people? By that logic, why even ask residents in your favorite specialties how they landed residencies? Or why on the USMLE/COMLEX thread, have that megathread of scores and experiences? Theirs would be anecdotal, too, yet here we are, either in real life, or here on SDN, people asking others how they landed residencies and how they aced their boards. I'm not saying whatever you hear is end all be all, but asking enough people so that you can get a rough idea of what it takes to achieve something is not exactly a major sin.

Bottom line: Don't act like others are dealt with the same cards you are dealt with. Your experiences at your school are undisputedly not applicable to the experiences at my school, and vice versa. Just because there's a grey area in your school, doesn't mean there's also one at my school (or any others, for that matter). And henceforth why some stuff are better left asking people at your own school instead of a public forum.