Importance of USMLE Scores in Interview Selection

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

yoyoma8

New Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
So I noticed in the NRMP Program Director Survey some graphs depicting USMLE "Scores Above Which Programs Almost Always Grant Interviews" and "Scores Below Which Programs Generally do not Grant Interviews" [about 230 and 200, respectively, for psychiatry]. Given that USMLE scores probably don't predict success in psychiatry very well and the lower importance attached to these scores in the specialty in general, I'm pretty skeptical of those graphs. I was wondering whether anyone here had any insight into whether high scores actually do translate into significantly higher consideration with respect to granting interviews.

The topic's of personal relevance to me, since I'll be applying this fall to psychiatry with relatively high scores [in the 250's on step 1, step 2 still pending], but I'm an img...so I'm really looking for any advantage I can find. Assuming an otherwise more-or-less competent application, do you think relatively high scores amount to at least a foot in the door, as in a chance to demonstrate oneself at an interview? Thanks in advance.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Given that USMLE scores probably don't predict success in psychiatry very well
That's probably just as true in psychiatry as it is in every other specialty. USMLE scores don't predict clinical acumen very well, but that's not their purpose in the residency selection process. A high USMLE score tells you that a person is more likely to be hard-working, able to set a goal and achieve it, reasonably intelligent, and good at learning medical facts. Even though those facts aren't necessarily associated with being a good doctor, they do increase your chances of being a good resident. I know that there are plenty of exceptions to that trend... but above all other factors, a PD is looking for somebody who is at low risk of being incompetent, and a high score is usually associated with a lower risk of incompetence (again, with plenty of exceptions).


and the lower importance attached to these scores in the specialty in general, I'm pretty skeptical of those graphs.
Psych puts more weight on Step 2ck vs. Step 1, but aside from that, I do think there's a reasonable amount of importance attached to these scores in psych. Yes, probably less so than in other specialties, but I think that's largely a product of the fact that psych is less competitive.


I was wondering whether anyone here had any insight into whether high scores actually do translate into significantly higher consideration with respect to granting interviews.
The topic's of personal relevance to me, since I'll be applying this fall to psychiatry with relatively high scores [in the 250's on step 1, step 2 still pending], but I'm an img...so I'm really looking for any advantage I can find. Assuming an otherwise more-or-less competent application, do you think relatively high scores amount to at least a foot in the door, as in a chance to demonstrate oneself at an interview? Thanks in advance.

Your application will be seen holistically, but I think that the step scores will definitely help. I know that they make some difference at my program, and that Step 2 is more important here. I also know of certain programs that use Step scores to filter IMGs, but not as much with AMGs.

For instance, I know that Baylor has a published cutoff for IMGs, and they're generally a well-respected program. At my interview there, I brought up the topic with some of the other applicants, and learned that the IMG interviewees had much higher Step scores than the non-IMG interviewees. So based on that n=1, there's definitely a difference.

I met one guy along the trail who also put up a post here about his stats about 1-2 months ago. His overall application was OK at best - IMG from a third-tier Caribbean school (yes, there's a third tier in the Caribbean), no research experience, nothing too extraordinary... except that he had 250+ on both steps and had good rec letters. And based on that, he had 24 interview invitations, including several very high-quality programs in less-than-desirable locations. He was invited to at least 4 different places that I would have considered ranking in my top 3 (2 of which were in my preliminary #1 slot at some point in time).

So in other words, with a 250+ and no red flags on your application, you'll probably have plenty of interviews at high-quality programs if you don't mind living in the Midwest. If you have good English skills, you'll have good chances at any of those programs. I'd suggest that you apply to every program in the country, just so that you have options... without knowing what your specific interests are, I suggest that you at least apply to WashU, Mayo, Indiana, Iowa, Florida, Baylor, Cleveland Clinic, St. Luke's Roosevelt in NYC, Hennepin in Minneapolis, UTHSC San Antonio, and Vanderbilt.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm pretty skeptical of those graphs. I was wondering whether anyone here had any insight into whether high scores actually do translate into significantly higher consideration with respect to granting interviews.

Given that the graph is based on the responses of PDs, I would not be skeptical of the data. The PDs are not saying that having a really high score guarantees you an interview or that a really low one prevents you from getting one. They are just telling you that scores above and below those numbers does correlate with the likelihood of getting an invitations. Also remember that the reported scores represent the average of all programs. The scores can vary markedly from program to program. I think the point of the information is to communicate to the applicants about how selective to be or not be in sending applications to programs. Based on the data I would say that people with scores above 230 could probably get by with applying to many fewer schools and those with scores below 200 will probably need to apply to an exceedingly large number of schools in order to get some invitations. If you have a strong application and your score is above 250, I would suspect that you will likely get invitations to a large number of the programs that you apply to.

Also realize that passing the test does not mean that you passed it on the first try. A large number of people who have scores below 200 probably took the test multiple times before being able to pass.
 
These questions about scores and what rules programs use to grant interviews are not the best way to think about this.

The truth is that most programs interview a fairly fixed number of applicants. Some want 5 interviews per slot, and some want 15 per slot, but whatever it is, they have a finite capacity to accommodate interviews. If that is say 50, they pick the best 50 applications. If that comes to an average score of 230, great, but if that comes down to 190, so be it. If they are having a very good recruiting year, the “cut off score” goes up. If they are having a weak year, it drops down as far as it needs to in order to provide enough candidates. Any pre-application rules about cut off scores are just guesses. Cut offs are very fluid depending on the pool of graduates applying.
 
Top