How well does your GPA correlate to your step 1?

[darktooth]

If you have an A average in your classes, should you expect to do excellent on step 1?

Is it more in depth thinking of the material you know, or is the same and just a matter of having 2 years worth of material down cold?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mcloaf]

I know at least at our school they have good internal data that the two are correlated, but I wouldn't interpet that to mean that just doing well in classes is adequate. Rather I suspect the people who are working hardest/smartest to kill it in M1/M2 continue that during boards prep.

Can't speak from experience, but interested to hear what folks have to say.

 

[MilkIsGood]

I know at least at our school they have good internal data that the two are correlated, but I wouldn't interpet that to mean that just doing well in classes is adequate. Rather I suspect the people who are working hardest/smartest to kill it in M1/M2 continue that during boards prep.

Can't speak from experience, but interested to hear what folks have to say.

Same with my school. But I think they keep saying that to discourage us from missing class.

 

[Beargryllz]

I know at least at our school they have good internal data that the two are correlated, but I wouldn't interpet that to mean that just doing well in classes is adequate. Rather I suspect the people who are working hardest/smartest to kill it in M1/M2 continue that during boards prep.

Can't speak from experience, but interested to hear what folks have to say.

I wonder which has a higher correlation: GPA or MCAT

 

[Missorleans]

If you have an A average in your classes, should you expect to do excellent on step 1?

Is it more in depth thinking of the material you know, or is the same and just a matter of having 2 years worth of material down cold?

In my experience, yes. The harder you work during first and second year and the better you learn everything, the easier it will come back when you start reviewing it all. I got As all first and second year and when I took a baseline practice test to see where I was before studying, I was already scoring right at the national average. That being said, you can't just expect to do above average on the real thing, you have to put in the time, and at that point you'll probably be focusing on more minutiae than during classes.

 

[Petypet]

Same with my school. But I think they keep saying that to discourage us from missing class.

At my school, they told us which courses correlated with good board performance. It made me realize their internal validations are crap because those block exams were 40% erroneous details, like epidemology and useless factoids.

I think Missorleans hit the nail on the head in that it isn't necessarily the grades but the effort in learning board material information. Then, when it comes time to studying for boards, its review not preview or initial exposure. However, I don't think grades are the be-all end-all. My block exams continually have useless statistics and factoids, and in some cases even neglect important patho-phys, pharm, and bugs. In the last 6 months I have neglected my course work for board review, and while I am average on exams, it is because I am not studying pointless crap. If I had to do it over again, I would give two craps about my grades and make sure I learn the ins and outs of everything in FA, and this is coming from someone that is continually within the top 5-15% of exam grades.

 

[dyspareunia]

I know at least at our school they have good internal data that the two are correlated, but I wouldn't interpet that to mean that just doing well in classes is adequate. Rather I suspect the people who are working hardest/smartest to kill it in M1/M2 continue that during boards prep.

Can't speak from experience, but interested to hear what folks have to say.

Same here. I'd like to think high GPA = high Step 1, but that's wishful thinking if I've ever seen it.

 

[Apoplexy__]

I wonder which has a higher correlation: GPA or MCAT

MCAT I'm sure.

I can't wait to be an "outlier" to help blow any correlation apart. 3.4 undergrad GPA, scored 255 on a baseline CBSE 8 weeks out from my test. It used to piss me off so much how easily misrepresenting a GPA can be.

An anecdotal extreme example, but: I have a friend who goes to a non-grade undergrad (yes, they're THAT unconventional). She took 2 classes at another university over the summer that DOES report GPA and got A's, so she'll have a 4.0 GPA reported.

 

[orchitisphlebitis]

Nearly every single school reports some type of correlation between preclinical performance and Step 1. They'll throw up a graph on the first day and tell you that studying hard in introductory Biochem will pay off. I think this can easily be explained by the fact that students who study hard for M1/M2, study hard for boards, and thus tend to do well. Reading intensely for two years has got to contribute to having a higher baseline of knowledge and easier recall of facts as well.

But don't pretend that knowing lecture minutiae and thus doing well on their tests = actually knowing your stuff (in terms of Step 1 relevant material). I think that's pretty obvious.

 

[PharMed2016]

I had a 3.3 undergrad GPA before attending pharmacy school prior to medical school. During medical school, most of my grades have fallen in upper 80s to low 90s. My estimated baseline 6 weeks out is about a 250s according to UWORLD and CBSE. It really depends on your institution. The GPA doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[dyspareunia]

I think the thread is about med school gpa. Obviously undergrad doesn't correlate at all