How much time for step 1 prep

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

mcgmaniac

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
I just found out it may be possible to use elective time at my school to extend step 1 prep by 4 weeks. I was pondering using this time to take the falcon course.

Two questions:

1) Does anyone think that taking extra time could become counterproductive?

2) Does anyone have any experience with the falcon course and know about its quality?
 
I just found out it may be possible to use elective time at my school to extend step 1 prep by 4 weeks. I was pondering using this time to take the falcon course.

Two questions:

1) Does anyone think that taking extra time could become counterproductive?

2) Does anyone have any experience with the falcon course and know about its quality?

1) It depends on you. Some people can handle 10-12 hours per day for 4 weeks straight. Personally, I have a difficult time studying more than 4 hours in one sitting or more than 6 hours total in one day (not counting practice questions/review). So, I took a much more drawn out approach (spread out over 4 months) that consisted of light prep early, attended the Kaplan liveprep course, took COMLEX, then studied intensely for the weeks following COMLEX leading into USMLE. And yes, I was exhausted by the end (lost gas about 1 week before the USMLE... so my timing wasn't too great).

2) Don't know much about falcon, but a quick google search had several other student inputs. Seems like students liked the course and had mediocre results (but it seems they were sub-par students to begin with, so I suppose it helped).
 
I think it would be best to save those weeks for something more productive, assuming you have sufficient time to prepare already.

If you've learned the first two years' material well, taking a course just for the boards seems like overkill.
 
1) Does anyone think that taking extra time could become counterproductive?

I'm not sure counterproductive is the word I would use. Nonproductive perhaps. Once you go too many weeks out from the test, most people start forgetting the older stuff pretty significantly. Thus, for example, 4-6 weeks of intense review is always going to be better than 4-6 months of less intense review, even if the latter constitutes many more hours. The question is how many weeks out can you go before it starts being wasted effort. I know of some schools that don't advise stretching the study period much beyond 6 weeks. But of course everyone's brain works a little differently.
 
If you used the extra time such that you shifted your intense study to the 4-6 weeks before the exam, and used the earlier time period that freed up to do some conceptual and general reading, then yeah, I can't for the life of me see how that could be a negative. So long as you aren't extending your intense study time and burning out before the exam, I don't think you would run much of a risk of being counter- or non-productive.

For that earlier study time you now have free, look for books that are more of a "general read" and somewhat entertaining, not a condensed set of tables and bullet-lists and pathway diagrams that need heavy memorization. Something like the Clinical Micro Made Ridiculously Simple, where you can read it like a book and things will stick with you. Or go through the lecture series at www.pathguy.com where you will find notes that can be an interesting read on pretty much all of pathology, littered with the guy's thoughts on economics, politics, etc. that keep the reading somewhat entertaining. You'll forget a lot of the details, but if you remember more of the big picture and get a better grasp of things your conceptual framework into which you stuff details before the test will be more solid. Or if you have access to video or audio lectures that are more "passive learning" do those early to help get the big picture. You can always repeat certain lectures or topics again that were high-yield in important details closer to the exam.

Two things I want to point out... it seems that most people in this forum recommend a sort of "rote learning" strategy for the USMLE, relying heavily on short/medium term memory to stuff a lot of the details in before the exam. While I am sure that a healthy dose of heavy memorization and intense study before the exam will probably raise anyone's score, it isn't the only way to learn. So the first thing I want to point out is that true learning isn't done through memorization, and studies have proven that. Hopefully your first two years were true learning with long term retention and integration with other knowledge (I'm not so sure that mine was...). The details might fade with time, but the big picture is still there and will serve you well both for the exam and beyond. The second thing I want to point out is that even if you rely heavily on memorization, you should remember that repetition is the key. People here talk about "forgetting things you had already learned" if you study too soon before the exam. Well, sure, but that's one more time you've seen the information, and it will be that much easier to memorize and stick just a little longer the next time around.
 
If you used the extra time such that you shifted your intense study to the 4-6 weeks before the exam, and used the earlier time period that freed up to do some conceptual and general reading, then yeah, I can't for the life of me see how that could be a negative. So long as you aren't extending your intense study time and burning out before the exam, I don't think you would run much of a risk of being counter- or non-productive.

Well, thats the key right there. Its hard to conceptualize at this point, because most people are just beginning their board prep.

After a point (at least for me), you just get so exhausted and so sick of studying, that you begin to stop caring. It becomes such a grind, that it sucks the life out of you. Virtually everyone hits the wall at some point, so you're kind of a ticking time bomb.

Be realistic with what you expect of yourself and plan accordingly.
 
I definitely agree with osli and Terpskins99 that that amount of time you can really intensely study is limited. How much time you have before you burn out is probably a personal thing. I knew that I had very little stamina for studying -- I didn't mind going to class, but I was never one to study every day during med school. So, for Step 1, I allotted myself 3 weeks to review for Step 1. That was the right choice for me - I felt prepared (well...reasonably), but wasn't too burned out. If you are someone who is able to really study for hours every day, though, you might be able to push through 6 weeks of intense review. Longer than 6 weeks seems a bit excessive to me..but again, it's a personal thing. If you need lots and lots of repetition, a longer time frame might be right for you.
 
That brings up a related but orthogonal question... what about the other end of your study time (i.e., the end, not the beginning)?

My school allows us 4 weeks in our schedule free to prepare for boards. But I have another three weeks after that which are very light in the schedule... essentially a lecture series until noon every day with no afternoon/evening study required.

Would taking the test right after that 4 weeks of intense prep be preferable over adding another one to three weeks of less intense review? I can see forgetting some information over the course of a week or two being a big disadvantage, but I can also see the possible benefit of being able to gear down a bit, relax some, and just do FA review and question bank re-review for a week or two. How much will leak out vs. how much more sticks?

I probably wouldn't ask if we had say 6 weeks for review, but with just 4 I guess I can't guarantee myself that I will have made it through everything I plan to. Maybe, maybe not.
 
My school allows us 4 weeks in our schedule free to prepare for boards. But I have another three weeks after that which are very light in the schedule... essentially a lecture series until noon every day with no afternoon/evening study required.

Would taking the test right after that 4 weeks of intense prep be preferable over adding another one to three weeks of less intense review?

In my opinion, I would not use the extra weeks. I felt that at the end of my intense period of studying, I was forgetting things as fast as I was reviewing them. Any more would also have increased my risk of burnout (How people study "just" 4 weeks amazes me)
 
Thanks. I'll probably set the exams pretty soon after my intense study period. I'll probably also note the deadline for pushing them back and monitor my progress to make sure I am comfortable. I'm sure I will be... but like most students facing boards we really have no idea how much study time is too much or too little except on the advice of those that have gone before us. 👍
 
it seems to me (though i havent taken step 1 yet) that I can study endlessly when I am studying something mechanistic, or when I am looking for the lynchpin that makes a bunch of stuff fit together conceptually, but the day before a test when I am reviewing my notes I burn out reading my own notes really quickly.

It would seem to me analagously that when you are reviewing for step 1, it is ridiculous to spend lots of time figuring out confusing mechanisms, etc. You want to maximize your score by refreshing your memory of stuff that you already know, and just need to see again really quickly before the test. That gets really tiring and tedious.
 
Top