How much of a role does your med school play in terms of board scores?

[watchergub]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've heard a lot about med school name not mattering nearly as much as pre-meds like to think it does, due to your performance in clerkships and your board scores mattering so much more. I agree with this. But as an accepted student (who is currently trying to decide between schools) I'm wondering how much of a role your school might play in students' board performance. Basically, do you think curriculum and other "board prep support" that a school gives makes a big difference in terms of Step 1 performance? Will a school that focuses more on preparing for Step 1 (giving shelf exams, etc) give me an advantage as opposed to attending a school that doesn't do this?

I am deciding between schools that have VERY different curricula and I just want to make sure that I put myself at a school that gives me the best chance to succeed (if there's any way to tell that.)

 

[Black Mamba24]

+1
I would like to know this as well.

 

[loltopsy]

People also say you should prefer schools that are strict P/F, so that you can focus on doing well on step 1 instead of classes. I personally think that varies depending on personality types. I think if I were in that type of school, it would be a strong motivator to be lazy.

I think what will influence your board scores most is choosing a school that you will be happy spending 4 years at.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

lol, :cough: usnews

 

[jm192]

I think it's an overrated factor in deciding.

If Duke, Hopkins, Washington, whoever all average the highest--I'm sure the school has a part in that. But at the same time, they take students that are more competitive. If you did well enough to get into one of these, it stands to reason you will do well on step 1.

That said, if the same brand of student goes to an average school, they're still going to do very well on step 1.

How hard you work those first 2 years, and especially those last 6 weeks will really determine it.

 

[Law2Doc]

I've heard a lot about med school name not mattering nearly as much as pre-meds like to think it does, due to your performance in clerkships and your board scores mattering so much more. I agree with this. But as an accepted student (who is currently trying to decide between schools) I'm wondering how much of a role your school might play in students' board performance. Basically, do you think curriculum and other "board prep support" that a school gives makes a big difference in terms of Step 1 performance? Will a school that focuses more on preparing for Step 1 (giving shelf exams, etc) give me an advantage as opposed to attending a school that doesn't do this?

I am deciding between schools that have VERY different curricula and I just want to make sure that I put myself at a school that gives me the best chance to succeed (if there's any way to tell that.)

The truth of the matter is its 90% an individual effort, and I suspect the same person would do about the same on Step 1 whether they went to the #1 ranked school or the #150 ranked school. Med school gives you a bit of foundation and structure for sure, and makes your board preparation easier to the extent the material isn't totally new, but for the most part all schools cover the msjor topics, and people threafter prepare for the boards learning from the same First Aid and qbank/World questions. About half of all med students at places without mandatory attendance opt to skip the lectures and learn on their own anyhow, so I don't think you can credit the med schools with their success or failure. And the lower ranked schools often get accused of "teaching to the boards" while the higher ranked places supposedly spend more time on loftier details (ie things that won't show up on tests but are interesting and cutting edge of interest to academics) so to the extent there is going to be built in board prep it's probably inversely related to US News rankings. I think the amount of time the school gives you to study before the boards may be relevant to how well you are able to prepare, and some people do need the egging on of much smarter cohorts to stay focused, so tougher admissions might be useful for some just to give some degree of fear/ competition. But I'd still say that for the most part this is a very individual effort, and you will do well or poorly on the boards based on the kind of effort you put in, not based on where you attend. (Fwiw I don't think there's a great correlation between shelf exams and the steps.)

Programs dont publish their board scores precisely because they want to remain flexible with different kinds of curricula (PBL, etc), and don't want to be regarded poorly as compared to the program that gives students 5 months off to study, hires a Kaplan course, and "teaches to the boards". It's presumed in academia that you can water down med school to a mere board review course and probably score as well or better, but in the end they fear programs that do this will crank out very mediocre doctors. So there's a tacit understanding not to publish board scores, and whatever numbers you see floating around on SDN and elsewhere are self serving and are mostly bogus.

There are things that can set schools apart, and make one better for you thn another, but I think board prep is more of a confounder because odds are you will skip a good hunk of your lectures and study on your own with the same board resources and do more or less exactly the same wherever you go, assuming you put the same effort in. The only thing that can screw you up is if you are happier in one setting versus another because that translates to your focus. I would probably focus more on things like quality of 3rd year rotations as paramount in your decision process, if you can get the info.

 

[NickNaylor]

I think what will influence your board scores most is choosing a school that you will be happy spending 4 years at.

I really, really don't think so... happiness doesn't get you good board scores. Working hard and putting in the effort to do well gets you good board scores. That's not to say happiness doesn't matter, but you're not going to smile your way to a 240+.

 

[thesauce]

There are things that can set schools apart, and make one better for you thn another, but I think board prep is more of a confounder because odds are you will skip a good hunk of your lectures and study on your own with the same board resources and do more or less exactly the same wherever you go, assuming you put the same effort in. The only thing that can screw you up is if you are happier in one setting versus another because that translates to your focus. I would probably focus more on things like quality of 3rd year rotations as paramount in your decision process, if you can get the info.

And I would think this is less-so if just because students are going to have wildly different experiences depending on which team/hospital/service they were on even within a given rotation. My experience on the IM endocrine service was much different than my friend who was on the IM hem/onc service, for instance. That and, as you alluded to, it's difficult to get the information unless there's some mandatory 3rd year satisfaction poll, but even then, few are going to "bad mouth" their school. Not to mention that you have all of residency to learn how to care for patients in your chosen specialty and, from what I've seen from my fellow residents across a multitude of schools, any school will get you a good enough foundation to learn that.

As for step 1, 100% agree. You are going to have to learn step 1 material in your own way and probably on your own time. And prep will only get you so far. Beyond that, you'll need that good ol' test-taking ability.

 

[Barcu]

Your school will play a very small role in your actual Step 1 score.

 

[DrSnips]

The truth of the matter is its 90% an individual effort, and I suspect the same person would do about the same on Step 1 whether they went to the #1 ranked school or the #150 ranked school. Med school gives you a bit of foundation and structure for sure, and makes your board preparation easier to the extent the material isn't totally new, but for the most part all schools cover the msjor topics, and people threafter prepare for the boards learning from the same First Aid and qbank/World questions. About half of all med students at places without mandatory attendance opt to skip the lectures and learn on their own anyhow, so I don't think you can credit the med schools with their success or failure. And the lower ranked schools often get accused of "teaching to the boards" while the higher ranked places supposedly spend more time on loftier details (ie things that won't show up on tests but are interesting and cutting edge of interest to academics) so to the extent there is going to be built in board prep it's probably inversely related to US News rankings. I think the amount of time the school gives you to study before the boards may be relevant to how well you are able to prepare, and some people do need the egging on of much smarter cohorts to stay focused, so tougher admissions might be useful for some just to give some degree of fear/ competition. But I'd still say that for the most part this is a very individual effort, and you will do well or poorly on the boards based on the kind of effort you put in, not based on where you attend. (Fwiw I don't think there's a great correlation between shelf exams and the steps.)

Programs dont publish their board scores precisely because they want to remain flexible with different kinds of curricula (PBL, etc), and don't want to be regarded poorly as compared to the program that gives students 5 months off to study, hires a Kaplan course, and "teaches to the boards". It's presumed in academia that you can water down med school to a mere board review course and probably score as well or better, but in the end they fear programs that do this will crank out very mediocre doctors. So there's a tacit understanding not to publish board scores, and whatever numbers you see floating around on SDN and elsewhere are self serving and are mostly bogus.

There are things that can set schools apart, and make one better for you thn another, but I think board prep is more of a confounder because odds are you will skip a good hunk of your lectures and study on your own with the same board resources and do more or less exactly the same wherever you go, assuming you put the same effort in. The only thing that can screw you up is if you are happier in one setting versus another because that translates to your focus. I would probably focus more on things like quality of 3rd year rotations as paramount in your decision process, if you can get the info.

This is incredibly true. There is much more variation in score within schools than between schools. The difference between the best and worst scorers in your class will be huge no matter where you go, and it will come down to personal factors.

 

[Alejandro]

P/F is a great thing imo because it gives me time and the flexibility to partake in research, shadow attendings, and get involved in my first two years. I think it's it is awesome because if it were graded, we would most often waste out time trying to gun for the highest grade even though from what it seems on SDN, first and second year grades are insignificant compared to 3rd and 4th yr as well as LoRs, Away rotations, and obviously, Step1/Step2 for the residency match process.

 

[FSU2013]

lol, :cough: usnews

? If you're implying the top schools prepare you best, you're just wrong.

How hard you work those first 2 years, and especially those last 6 weeks will really determine it.

+1

I really, really don't think so... happiness doesn't get you good board scores. Working hard and putting in the effort to do well gets you good board scores. That's not to say happiness doesn't matter, but you're not going to smile your way to a 240+.

+1

What gets you killer board scores isn't your school. The ONLY thing that I think my school did that actually really helped me study for step 1 was not requiring class attendance. No amount of sitting in class/small-group/PBL will help you get 240/250/260/etc. You need to sit down with your FA, UWorld, BRS Phys/Path, etc and go to town. You need to be willing to start studying for Step 1 early. You need to be willing to work like crazy for a month prior to the exam.

Yes, some schools can "teach to the test" and they might end up with marginally higher score, but I would argue that this isn't necessarily what you want. Everything you need to know to be a good third year student isn't covered on Step 1.

 

[darkjedi]

My school underwent a curriculum change in early 2000s to the now 1.5 year accelerated curriculum, where we take our boards at year 2.5, after clinics. We were something like 8th or 9th place for board scores in the nation, but rocketed to #1-2 within 2 years after the new curriculum was implemented and have stayed there ever since.

Curriculum likely has some impact, but probably only on a class-wide scale. Individual effort still is the most variable factor in the equation.

 

[FSU2013]

My school underwent a curriculum change in early 2000s to the now 1.5 year accelerated curriculum, where we take our boards at year 2.5, after clinics. We were something like 8th or 9th place for board scores in the nation, but rocketed to #1-2 within 2 years after the new curriculum was implemented and have stayed there ever since.

Curriculum likely has some impact, but probably only on a class-wide scale. Individual effort still is the most variable factor in the equation.

You're saying that you take step 1 after a year of rotations and still remember biochem, embryo, etc?

 

[loltopsy]

I really, really don't think so... happiness doesn't get you good board scores. Working hard and putting in the effort to do well gets you good board scores. That's not to say happiness doesn't matter, but you're not going to smile your way to a 240+.

What I meant by that is that if you're happy, you're less likely to get burnt out in the first two years. Being miserable makes it harder to study and do well on any test.

Assuming you're going to try to work hard, and that generally, all med school education is the same, the only real variation is happiness.

 

[survivordo]

I think its a chicken and the egg type of situation. Do the top schools have top scores because they self select the best students or are they really just that good at teaching? I think it's probably the self selection theory and these students probably would have done well if they had gone to Podunk Med.

That being said, Some people will have an easier run at it than others but ANYONE that puts the time an effort into it can do really well on boards. It's just a matter of picking an appropriate study strategy and sticking to it.

Survivor DO

 

[darkjedi]

You're saying that you take step 1 after a year of rotations and still remember biochem, embryo, etc?

It clearly hasn't hurt us, the MS3/4 all say clinics helped them with boards.

 

[futureczar]

Columbia has an average Step 1 score that is >240. Is it any surprise that Columbia students get good residencies when their average score is competitive in pretty much every specialty?

School name is overrated. The best students get into top tier schools and then rock their boards and get awesome residencies. If the same student decided to go to their state school they would probably do just as well.

 

[watchergub]

The truth of the matter is its 90% an individual effort, and I suspect the same person would do about the same on Step 1 whether they went to the #1 ranked school or the #150 ranked school. Med school gives you a bit of foundation and structure for sure, and makes your board preparation easier to the extent the material isn't totally new, but for the most part all schools cover the msjor topics, and people threafter prepare for the boards learning from the same First Aid and qbank/World questions. About half of all med students at places without mandatory attendance opt to skip the lectures and learn on their own anyhow, so I don't think you can credit the med schools with their success or failure. And the lower ranked schools often get accused of "teaching to the boards" while the higher ranked places supposedly spend more time on loftier details (ie things that won't show up on tests but are interesting and cutting edge of interest to academics) so to the extent there is going to be built in board prep it's probably inversely related to US News rankings. I think the amount of time the school gives you to study before the boards may be relevant to how well you are able to prepare, and some people do need the egging on of much smarter cohorts to stay focused, so tougher admissions might be useful for some just to give some degree of fear/ competition. But I'd still say that for the most part this is a very individual effort, and you will do well or poorly on the boards based on the kind of effort you put in, not based on where you attend. (Fwiw I don't think there's a great correlation between shelf exams and the steps.)

Programs dont publish their board scores precisely because they want to remain flexible with different kinds of curricula (PBL, etc), and don't want to be regarded poorly as compared to the program that gives students 5 months off to study, hires a Kaplan course, and "teaches to the boards". It's presumed in academia that you can water down med school to a mere board review course and probably score as well or better, but in the end they fear programs that do this will crank out very mediocre doctors. So there's a tacit understanding not to publish board scores, and whatever numbers you see floating around on SDN and elsewhere are self serving and are mostly bogus.

There are things that can set schools apart, and make one better for you thn another, but I think board prep is more of a confounder because odds are you will skip a good hunk of your lectures and study on your own with the same board resources and do more or less exactly the same wherever you go, assuming you put the same effort in. The only thing that can screw you up is if you are happier in one setting versus another because that translates to your focus. I would probably focus more on things like quality of 3rd year rotations as paramount in your decision process, if you can get the info.

Thank you so much for this advice (and everyone else's too). I have an additional question about 3rd year rotations that I'd like to ask, if you don't mind. I'm currently deciding between a school that would cost $20k in tuition, but is unranked and doesn't allow me to take any electives until 4th year and a school that is $30k, low ranked and allows students to take a few electives in 3rd year. Would you consider this to be a huge disadvantage? I'm not quite sure how to look at rotations yet, or how to assess "quality."

 

[obscurehero]

People also say you should prefer schools that are strict P/F, so that you can focus on doing well on step 1 instead of classes. I personally think that varies depending on personality types. I think if I were in that type of school, it would be a strong motivator to be lazy.

I think what will influence your board scores most is choosing a school that you will be happy spending 4 years at.

This BS again. I heard students visiting my school say this crap. If you need a grade to motivate you to do well, you're not going to do well in medicine. Firstly, you need to study hard all throughout your preclinical courses simply because you need to know the stuff well to get the good boards scores. Secondly, you need to know the stuff well so that when the attending asks you what's going on you have a clue, or when you do your first H&P you have an idea of the differential.

That said, my school is P/F for preclinical but you still get your % on each test while your transcript grade will only have the 'P'. So you don't lose all sense of placement.

Columbia has an average Step 1 score that is >240. Is it any surprise that Columbia students get good residencies when their average score is competitive in pretty much every specialty?

School name is overrated. The best students get into top tier schools and then rock their boards and get awesome residencies. If the same student decided to go to their state school they would probably do just as well.

This. Students will self-select. Does it mean that Columbia does a superior job of training their medical students? Maybe, but probably not. It's more likely that better pre-meds with better MCATs applied and were accepted there and they're track record of success just continued while at Columbia.

Step 1 is the great equalizer. Otherwise, the really only important thing that I can think of is the quality of MS3 clerkships. But, that's really already been said.

 

[Nymphicus]

lol, :cough: usnews

useless when you have one data point