- Joined
- Sep 30, 2016
- Messages
- 751
- Reaction score
- 1,584
so I recently overheard another student say that while they stink at uworld and boards they're much better in clinical practice and basically know their stuff. what do y'all think?
SavageI never understood the whole "I'm not a good test-taker" argument. What part aren't you good at, the part where you have to use your knowledge to show what you know?
so I recently overheard another student say that while they stink at uworld and boards they're much better in clinical practice and basically know their stuff. what do y'all think?
does this work to improve grades?Based on the way you’ve phrased the question I’m sure you already know. Also, M3 isn’t a good place to gauge your clinical skills and know your stuff. There are enough useless people in every M3 class who focus on anticipating what’s next rather than learning (the kind who UptoDate on their phone before anyone else can) and practice reading their note to shine relative to others when the whole point of M3 should be learning without being afraid of making mistakes.
my opinion is definitely in line with the above savage poster (aside from those with legit performance anxiety) but just wanted to hear out others. from my own experience people who make this claim also tend to not prove themselves so knowledgeable when prompted in a "clinical setting". but yea, m3 is pretty friggin annoying with all these kids who know exactly how to play the game to shine in front of the attendings and residents.Based on the way you’ve phrased the question I’m sure you already know. Also, M3 isn’t a good place to gauge your clinical skills and know your stuff. There are enough useless people in every M3 class who focus on anticipating what’s next rather than learning (the kind who UptoDate on their phone before anyone else can) and practice reading their note to shine relative to others when the whole point of M3 should be learning without being afraid of making mistakes.
I never understood the whole "I'm not a good test-taker" argument. What part aren't you good at, the part where you have to use your knowledge to show what you know?
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelma...ing_the_Relationships_Between_USMLE.98203.pdfWell, basically, yeah? You're also messing the second part of your sentence - the other part they might not be good at...
But seriously, a lot of datas show that testing doesn't have great correlation to, well, much...other than other testing outcomes. There is a reason why there is an entire industry around testing; test taking strategies are just as important as actual knowledge of the material. How many times have you read a stem wrong, or were tripped up by a double negative, etc. but actually knew the answer. Funnily enough, those that do well on tests, when surveyed, think that tests are more important.
From what I've seen, MCAT is somewhat predictive of step, step is fairly strongly correlated with other steps & shelf exams. Also - written evals do a poor job of matching with testing;
Does the subjective evaluation of medical student surgical knowledge correlate with written and oral exam performance? - "There was poor correlation between the subjective perception and objective measures of surgical knowledge (Table 1)"
Does the subjective evaluation of medical student surgical knowledge correlate with written and oral exam performance? - PubMed - NCBI
does this work to improve grades?
so I recently overheard another student say that while they stink at uworld and boards they're much better in clinical practice and basically know their stuff. what do y'all think?
It can because it can make you look smarter than you actually are which convinces some people to give them a stronger evals.
One of my biggest gripes with third year was that it’s biased towards people who pick things up quickly and are anally retentive. It takes me longer to get how things work (EMR, what attendings want, who to ask for what, etc.) but I’m always willing to improve and try to maintain a good attitude. I think it’s fair that people who pick things up faster get better evals because chances are they’ll pick things up faster in residency. I just wish that they gave us some time to learn at our own pace too where we didn’t have to worry about evaluations, but rather whether not we achieved competencies (good notes, good form physical exams, crisp presentations) and slower students were more accepted. 4th year’s better in that way and if you apply yourself you’ll stand out a bit because ppl will wondering why you’re not checked out, but for me I plan to squeeze every last learning opportunity to see patients out of it.
I never understood the whole "I'm not a good test-taker" argument. What part aren't you good at, the part where you have to use your knowledge to show what you know?
I only work with residents and not med students at the moment, so it's not something I need to worry about, but I really have never figured out what I want to see from students and how to most fairly grade them. They all come in knowing basically nothing, some learn more than others, some know more but aren't as proficient at the "doing" parts of the rotation. Some are super helpful and try hard but never quite 'get it'. I'm colored by my own awful experience at being an M3. I mostly wish I could just focus on narrative evals for pass/fail clinical grades, but schools that actually do that are few and far between.
my opinion is definitely in line with the above savage poster (aside from those with legit performance anxiety) but just wanted to hear out others. from my own experience people who make this claim also tend to not prove themselves so knowledgeable when prompted in a "clinical setting". but yea, m3 is pretty friggin annoying with all these kids who know exactly how to play the game to shine in front of the attendings and residents.
Do real patients spit out 5-7 answer choices after I do my H&P?
They do, however, often give you a single answer choice that they insist is correct.
And frequently involves an organ system that has nothing to do with what's actually wrong or some super rare disease that doesn't exist...
Most of the attending physicians I have worked with basically admit that they've forgotten 85% of what was on the boards and focused hard on their specialty. Boards and clinical practice do have some correlation, most likely, as specialty boards tend to cover knowledge one actually uses in practice and pass rates correlate well with Step performance.
Step 1 was the most well written, fair, and objective exam I've ever taken in my life. Everything else is a comparative disappointment, like when you have a meal prepared perfectly at one restaurant and then can never enjoy the same dish elsewhere because it just doesn't measure up.The ABPN exam wasn't the worst thing I've ever taken, but it made me appreciate how much better written the Steps' questions are by comparison.
Plus I took it the year that half the exam was about dissociative fugue for some reason.
even compared to the mcat? I thought that was a fair exam.Step 1 was the most well written, fair, and objective exam I've ever taken in my life. Everything else is a comparative disappointment, like when you have a meal prepared perfectly at one restaurant and then can never enjoy the same dish elsewhere because it just doesn't measure up.
I disagree on the basis that the misery of step 1 could never be comparable to delicious food.Step 1 was the most well written, fair, and objective exam I've ever taken in my life. Everything else is a comparative disappointment, like when you have a meal prepared perfectly at one restaurant and then can never enjoy the same dish elsewhere because it just doesn't measure up.
I think motivation is a factor. Some people simply can't get too motivated to study ultra hard for tests. Plus a lot of boards and exams are memorizing buzzwords etc.I think the info gathering and presenting is a great argument, but to suggest somebody would know a diagnosis in the clinical setting when they cant identify it when its literally in their face is just asinine
People keep saying that step scores don’t correlate with how good a doctor you become. But do MS3 grades do any better of a job at that? To me, MS3 grades were a crapshoot, and mostly dictated by how much you could stand out; not necessarily how competent you were.
Have the MS3 see a patient with multiple complaints and a long list of pathologies. If they come out with a reasonable plan, they'll be a competent physician. Evals are horse ****.People keep saying that step scores don’t correlate with how good a doctor you become. But do MS3 grades do any better of a job at that? To me, MS3 grades were a crapshoot, and mostly dictated by how much you could stand out; not necessarily how competent you were.
Way better than the MCAT, if only because the preparation leading into the exam is pretty standardized. The MCAT is so broad and questions can be approached in so many more ways, whereas the Step exam is much, much more straightforward.even compared to the mcat? I thought that was a fair exam.
I thought it was a wonderful challenge. Like, surviving that exam is one of the greatest accomplishments of my life.I disagree on the basis that the misery of step 1 could never be comparable to delicious food.
speak for yourself, my professors make it their mission to include stuff that is only found on sub specialty boards.Way better than the MCAT, if only because the preparation leading into the exam is pretty standardized. The MCAT is so broad and questions can be approached in so many more ways, whereas the Step exam is much, much more straightforward.
I suppose your problem was listening to your professors to begin with, I was ignoring them for the most part and going 100% for the boards from day 1speak for yourself, my professors make it their mission to include stuff that is only found on sub specialty boards.
This clip comes to mind:I never understood the whole "I'm not a good test-taker" argument. What part aren't you good at, the part where you have to use your knowledge to show what you know?
You mean, like... intelligent people???It can because it can make you look smarter than you actually are which convinces some people to give them a stronger evals.
One of my biggest gripes with third year was that it’s biased towards people who pick things up quickly and are anally retentive. It takes me longer to get how things work (EMR, what attendings want, who to ask for what, etc.) but I’m always willing to improve and try to maintain a good attitude. I think it’s fair that people who pick things up faster get better evals because chances are they’ll pick things up faster in residency. I just wish that they gave us some time to learn at our own pace too where we didn’t have to worry about evaluations, but rather whether not we achieved competencies (good notes, good form physical exams, crisp presentations) and slower students were more accepted. 4th year’s better in that way and if you apply yourself you’ll stand out a bit because ppl will be wondering why you’re not checked out, but for me I plan to squeeze every last learning opportunity to see patients out of it.
People like me who were apathetic and burned out M3-4s and much better residents are more likely to be the exception than the rule.
If I can make it through biochem review I’ll feel a lot better lolI thought it was a wonderful challenge. Like, surviving that exam is one of the greatest accomplishments of my life.
DaaaaaaaaaaaaaamnYou mean, like... intelligent people???
Enzyme questions really arent that common on step 1, at least anymore. Its not a valid excuse anymore. I dont really know what to make of the rest of your statement. I guess it would also depend on how poorly a person does on step 1. I can see the argument made for a 230 or 240 but 200 no way.For me at least, it's not usually the question stem/diagnosis I have trouble with, it's the answers. Unless it's something that I literally didn't study/see in clinic, I can usually figure out the diagnosis and in a clinical setting, and I would be able to sit down and tell you what labs and imaging I want to order, what I think is wrong, what I want to rule out, how we should approach treatment, etc. But on exams, the question is usually what do you do next, and you have to pick ONE thing to do when in reality you would probably be doing multiple answer choices at once. Maybe I'm overthinking the answer choices, idk. And then of course the rote memorization questions that are "which of the following 5 similar-sounding enzymes are deficient in this incredibly rare disease" are where I really struggle, and that's what a lot of M1/M2 and Step 1 are, which I performed worse on (I've been average/above average on most shelf exams).
1. COPDHave the MS3 see a patient with multiple complaints and a long list of pathologies. If they come out with a reasonable plan, they'll be a competent physician. Evals are horse ****.
People keep saying that step scores don’t correlate with how good a doctor you become. But do MS3 grades do any better of a job at that? To me, MS3 grades were a crapshoot, and mostly dictated by how much you could stand out; not necessarily how competent you were.
Very few medical students have held real jobs before medical school starts. I assume that also plays a role here.One thing i just realized - students entering med school are much more prepared for preclinicals than they are for clinicals. Every student has been studying and taking written tests for years before med school. Very few have real clinical experience. given this i think preclinicals and m4 should hold the most weight
DING DING DING! This is the saddest part about talking to my classmates. Digging proverbial ditches before school would make a lot of these people not only do exponentially better during the clinical years, but they would also be much less insufferable.Very few medical students have held real jobs before medical school starts. I assume that also plays a role here.
Say 2 students are equal in their information gathering ability - the student with more knowledge as indicated by higher board scores should be able to formulate a better differential without the help of outside resources that just list differentials for you. This is the knowledge that im referring to. When a student is prompted with questions from the attending without having the ability to google, the student with the higher boards should know more. In my experience this has been the case. If this is true, how does this not translate to better clinical knowledge overall? And im not talking about specialized docs here just general stuff.
DING DING DING! This is the saddest part about talking to my classmates. Digging proverbial ditches before school would make a lot of these people not only do exponentially better during the clinical years, but they would also be much less insufferable.