Importance of year 1 and 2 grades for residency?

[SnowTown]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Will year 1 and 2 grades matter much if someone gets a pretty good score on step 1?

I'm under the impression that important items for getting into good residency programs are step 1 score, rec letters, and clerkship/rotation grades, research... is that right?

Thanks.

 

[Droopy Snoopy]

Will year 1 and 2 grades matter much if someone gets a pretty good score on step 1?

I'm under the impression that important items for getting into good residency programs are step 1 score, rec letters, and clerkship/rotation grades, research... is that right?

Thanks.

That's about right, but keep in mind it's pretty tough to ace step I/II and shine on rotations if you don't learn anything the first two years.

 

[Northerner]

I think this is the very first time this question has been asked. It would be silly to use the Search function.

 

[Law2Doc]

That's about right, but keep in mind it's pretty tough to ace step I/II and shine on rotations if you don't learn anything the first two years.

Agreed. While the first two years don't count for as much on their own, they are pretty significant foundation for the stuff that does count.

 

[bubbachuck]

i was recently listened in on a panel that had four residency directors (pathology, radiology, psychiatry, and internal medicine) and the question asked was how much the grades in years 1 and 2 actually count. the gist of the answer was that if you are leaning towards a research-heavy position, then yes the grades were important. but if you were looking towards a clinical career, then the grades in years 3 and 4 were more important. this question was asked because the the previous question had been what do residency programs look for in candidates and the answer included Step 1, letters of recommendation, clerkship grades, but grades in years 1 and 2 were not mentioned. BTW this was a panel geared towards MD/PhD students.

 

[Re3iRtH]

Agreed. While the first two years don't count for as much on their own, they are pretty significant foundation for the stuff that does count.

There is actually a HUGE correlation between MS1 and MS2 year GPA
and Step1 performance. Its the highest correlation out of any other
factor you can think of.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

There is actually a HUGE correlation between MS1 and MS2 year GPA
and Step1 performance. Its the highest correlation out of any other
factor you can think of.

Citation please?

 

[madeyedhl]

wow, in korea, for those who have enough brain spaces want to know about korean system, all 4 ms years are graded by their rating. it has abcd/f grade system but the ranking... -_- it has like 10 ranking system... cant explain it well enuf cuz i stink in english these days. its like divided into 10 system. top 10% is grade 1, 10~20% is grade 2 etc. and we need to get grade 1~2 to get into prestigious university. TT


also ms 1,2 years, its based on purely tests and some lab isnt it? so the grades are fairly distributed TT but in the rotation years, everybody, unless they screw up badly, gets As and Bs. so the overall 4 year grading system is basically dependent upon the first two years. stinks TT

 

[lord_jeebus]

There is actually a HUGE correlation between MS1 and MS2 year GPA
and Step1 performance. Its the highest correlation out of any other
factor you can think of.

Few schools have grades that can be converted to GPA. If you have citations, please share.

My impression is that these grades only matter to the extent that they contribute to AOA status, and in that they reflect learning that will be tested on Step I.

 

[Blade28]

We probably need some residents in here to answer this question properly, no? 🙂

 

[deucerp]

They play a large role in AOA along with Step I...

 

[mikedc813]

Will year 1 and 2 grades matter much if someone gets a pretty good score on step 1?

I'm under the impression that important items for getting into good residency programs are step 1 score, rec letters, and clerkship/rotation grades, research... is that right?

Thanks.

These grades matter because they factor into your class rank, which IS important. It tells residency programs how well you did compared to everyone else in your class. Unless you get a 280 on Step 1, you will want to try to do as well as you can during 1st and 2nd years. 3rd year, for that matter, is also important since it usually accounts for the biggest % of your class rank. Step 2 is less important than Step 1.

 

[mikedc813]

They play a large role in AOA along with Step I...

At my school you must have done well during 1st and 2nd years, but also have Honors in all 3rd year clerkships.

 

[RxnMan]

...Here's the bottom line. Do your best. Period. Do your best, and the rest will fall into place.

+1

 

[LadyWolverine]

Who cares about silly citations? Obviously if you do well in MS1 and MS2 you stand a better chance of doing better on Step 1. Your medical school teaches your classes and gives you exams for a reason. Who really knows what the exact correlation is? I'm sure that one exists, and it's probably a pretty strong one. Has it been studied and cited somewhere? I don't know. I'd rather just continue learning what I need to learn now so that I can review it when it comes time to prepare for Step 1.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Who cares about silly citations? Obviously if you do well in MS1 and MS2 you stand a better chance of doing better on Step 1. Your medical school teaches your classes and gives you exams for a reason. Who really knows what the exact correlation is? I'm sure that one exists, and it's probably a pretty strong one. Has it been studied and cited somewhere? I don't know. I'd rather just continue learning what I need to learn now so that I can review it when it comes time to prepare for Step 1.

You do whatever you want to do, I'm still waiting for some real evidence. In my experience people who did the best in MS1 and MS2 classes were not the ones scoring tops when the boards came.

 

[Blade28]

In my experience people who did the best in MS1 and MS2 classes were not the ones scoring tops when the boards came.

Are you sure you don't mean that of the people who did well on Step 1, many didn't ace their way through the MS-I/MS-II years?

Subtle difference.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Are you sure you don't mean that of the people who did well on Step 1, many didn't ace their way through the MS-I/MS-II years?

Subtle difference.

I believe that is also true in addition to my statement.

 

[Northerner]

I believe that is also true in addition to my statement.

Pretty controversial to assert that grades and board scores are inversely related.

It's one thing to say there's no appreciable correlation. It's quite another to say the groups are mutually exclusive.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Pretty controversial to assert that grades and board scores are inversely related.

It's one thing to say there's no appreciable correlation. It's quite another to say the groups are mutually exclusive.

I didn't say the better your grades the lower your step I. I just said in my class the top scorers when Step I came weren't the students who had the highest grades the first two years. But that's anecdotal evidence, that is why we need someone to actually post a reasonable study.

 

[8744]

You do whatever you want to do, I'm still waiting for some real evidence. In my experience people who did the best in MS1 and MS2 classes were not the ones scoring tops when the boards came.

How do you know? I have no idea what grades others got on Step 1 and 2 except that a few people told me. And I didn't ask for proof so I have no way of knowing what they really got.

It just makes sense that people who do well in first and second year have a running start at doing better on Step 1 than people who struggled. If you know more, as indicated by studying more and getting better grades, you will do better. The Step tests are day-long ordeals that weed out the element of luck from the test.

The most dangerous attitude for a first-year student to adopt is that that pre-clinical grades don't matter. That attitude cost me a year of training, profound discontent, a cross-country move, and at least thirty-thousand dollars in additional moving expenses and real estate losses, not to mention a year of lost earning potential.

 

[tony montana]

The Step tests are day-long ordeals that weed out the element of luck from the test.

Funny how you read in the step 1 forum that getting the higher scores is often a matter of luck, once preparation has been accounted for.

 

[Blade28]

Funny how you read in the step 1 forum that getting the higher scores is often a matter of luck, once preparation has been accounted for.

Maybe that's what people who scored poorly say. 🙂

 

[tony montana]

Maybe that's what people who scored poorly say. 🙂

nah check it out

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=5443610&postcount=13

 

[Blade28]

nah check it out

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=5443610&postcount=13

Oh, well, yeah, difference between 260 and 270 might be just a couple questions!

But difference between 190 and 230, for example - now THAT'S a lot (almost 2 standard deviations)!

 

[Law2Doc]

I didn't say the better your grades the lower your step I. I just said in my class the top scorers when Step I came weren't the students who had the highest grades the first two years. But that's anecdotal evidence, that is why we need someone to actually post a reasonable study.

There are no studies on this that I am aware of because it would require access to student grades and the board scores at specific schools, neither of which is available for public dissemination. Many schools have done their own internal study of this and routinely tell their students that historically at such school, doing well in med school, particularly second year, is the best predictor of board scores. But no, you will not likely see any published study on this. The data is simply not accessible externally from each school, making a multi-school study on the issue impossible. And schools tend not to make their internal studies available outside the school.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

There are no studies on this that I am aware of because it would require access to student grades and the board scores at specific schools, neither of which is available for public dissemination. Many schools have done their own internal study of this and routinely tell their students that historically at such school, doing well in med school, particularly second year, is the best predictor of board scores. But no, you will not likely see any published study on this. The data is simply not accessible externally from each school, making a multi-school study on the issue impossible. And schools tend not to make their internal studies available outside the school.

Which schools have conducted these internal studies?

 

[Law2Doc]

Which schools have conducted these internal studies?

Many.

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

Which schools have conducted these internal studies?

My school has made similar claims as well, but of course nothing "published" so it could still just be propaganda.

That said, I'm reasonably sure the top scores in our class were among the highest rank students. We didn't have the phenomenon of "Person who studies way too much for each test and is #1 in class but then can't synthesize for the board and bombs" or opposite: "Guy who dogs it through the first two years and gets a 270".

But of course, one school, one year so your mileage may vary.

 

[Law2Doc]

We didn't have the phenomenon of "Person who studies way too much for each test and is #1 in class but then can't synthesize for the board and bombs" or opposite: "Guy who dogs it through the first two years and gets a 270".

Even if you had both those exceptions, it wouldn't disprove a rule that may have applied to the other 140 people in your class. Exceptions absolutely do and will happen at every school. But many schools do tell their students that historically, based on internal data, folks who do well in classes do better ON AVERAGE on Step 1. Doesn't ring false to me.

 

[-Goose-]

Even if you had both those exceptions, it wouldn't disprove a rule that may have applied to the other 140 people in your class. Exceptions absolutely do and will happen at every school. But many schools do tell their students that historically, based on internal data, folks who do well in classes do better ON AVERAGE on Step 1. Doesn't ring false to me.

Does anyone know of people at the top of their class bombing the boards? Is that remotely common?

 

[Law2Doc]

Does anyone know of people at the top of their class bombing the boards? Is that remotely common?

It definitely happens now and then, not sure if that constitutes "remotely common". It's hard to really know how often it happens because obviously top students don't go around bragging about their failures.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Does anyone know of people at the top of their class bombing the boards? Is that remotely common?

Probably not, but it seems to be a long-enduring SDN myth. The thing that's interesting about these SDN discussions are that people seem to assume they know everyone's grades and board scores, which I find hard to believe since some of us actually keep stuff like that to ourselves.

Do you really know who the top and bottom grade performers are in your class? And how do you really know who had the highest and lowest board scores?

 

[Law2Doc]

Probably not, but it seems to be a long-enduring SDN myth. The thing that's interesting about these SDN discussions are that people seem to assume they know everyone's grades and board scores, which I find hard to believe since some of us actually keep stuff like that to ourselves.

Do you really know who the top and bottom grade performers are in your class? And how do you really know who had the highest and lowest board scores?

Everyone knows who a few of the top grade folks are, particularly those whose names keep appearing on honors projects. In terms of correlating grades and scores though, it's something the schools would have to do. And as suggested above many do.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Even if you had both those exceptions, it wouldn't disprove a rule that may have applied to the other 140 people in your class. Exceptions absolutely do and will happen at every school. But many schools do tell their students that historically, based on internal data, folks who do well in classes do better ON AVERAGE on Step 1. Doesn't ring false to me.

Well then it sounds a lot like the MCAT.

 

[Law2Doc]

Well then it sounds a lot like the MCAT.

I guess, but these schools are saying that eg second year grades are a lot better correlated to Step 1 than the MCAT. Which in some ways makes intuitive sense because the material is related, and folks tend to change more in 2-3 years (subsequent to the MCAT) than 8 weeks (between 2d year and Step 1).

 

[Pinkertinkle]

I guess, but these schools are saying that eg second year grades are a lot better correlated to Step 1 than the MCAT. Which in some ways makes intuitive sense because the material is related, and folks tend to change more in 2-3 years (subsequent to the MCAT) than 8 weeks (between 2d year and Step 1).

Sorry, I like my beliefs to be rooted in evidence so I can't agree with you since you can provide little more than nonspecific hearsay.

 

[Terpskins99]

There is actually a HUGE correlation between MS1 and MS2 year GPA
and Step1 performance. Its the highest correlation out of any other
factor you can think of.

Bullcrap detector just lit up. 👎idea:

I did poorly during MS1 year, just about the class average during MS2 year and did considerably above the nat'l average on boards. I know I'm not the exception in student doctor.

If standardized tests aren't your forte, then you're going to struggle to do well on Step I. But beyond that, the USMLE is all about individual effort. If you put in enough effort into it, you can score as high as anyone else. There are students in here that scored in the high-20's on the MCAT, did average in their basic science years and then torched USMLE with 250+.

 

[tony montana]

Bullcrap detector just lit up. 👎idea:

I did poorly during MS1 year, just about the class average during MS2 year and did considerably above the nat'l average on boards. I know I'm not the exception in student doctor.

If standardized tests aren't your forte, then you're going to struggle to do well on Step I. But beyond that, the USMLE is all about individual effort. If you put in enough effort into it, you can score as high as anyone else. There are students in here that scored in the high-20's on the MCAT, did average in their basic science years and then torched USMLE with 250+.

True dat!

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Bullcrap detector just lit up. 👎idea:

I did poorly during MS1 year, just about the class average during MS2 year and did considerably above the nat'l average on boards. I know I'm not the exception in student doctor.

If standardized tests aren't your forte, then you're going to struggle to do well on Step I. But beyond that, the USMLE is all about individual effort. If you put in enough effort into it, you can score as high as anyone else. There are students in here that scored in the high-20's on the MCAT, did average in their basic science years and then torched USMLE with 250+.

I agree.

 

[Northerner]

Bullcrap detector just lit up. 👎idea:

I did poorly during MS1 year, just about the class average during MS2 year and did considerably above the nat'l average on boards. I know I'm not the exception in student doctor.

If standardized tests aren't your forte, then you're going to struggle to do well on Step I. But beyond that, the USMLE is all about individual effort. If you put in enough effort into it, you can score as high as anyone else. There are students in here that scored in the high-20's on the MCAT, did average in their basic science years and then torched USMLE with 250+.

You know, all this anecdotal support of the "slackers do just as well" camp could be interpreted as: "exceptions" (mediocre students who really want to turn it on for Step I) tend to hang out together, therefore that's what their experience is, that's who they're surrounded by in higher concentration. It could also be interpreted as: good students who do well on Step I aren't as interesting or vocal about their grades and scores. A number of other legitimate interpretations of these anecdotes could be made.

If you want to disagree with the assertion that students with good grades tend to do better on Step I, that's fine. But just realize that in the absence of good evidence, your anecdotes are just as weak as support as theirs are. The only difference is, their suggested association makes sense.

 

[LadyWolverine]

Congrats on scoring well after two "poor/average" years, Terpskins. I'm assuming you're both a Maryland and a Skins fan, which means that you rock regardless of Step 1 outcome.
However, I still firmly believe that those who tend to perform better in classes/on exams in the pre-clinical years also tend to score higher on Step 1. Of course there are going to be people who, for one reason or another, couldn't/didn't want to/didn't have time to do exceptionally well during MS1 and 2, but were able to pull it together and focus on the important material come June/July. But it makes very little sense to conclude that there's no/doubtful correlation just because there's no scientific evidence supporting that exact hypothesis. It seems like common sense. Besides, we've been told repeatedly by our faculty that the best way to be successful on Step 1 is to learn everything now and do well in our classes. Since our advisors have several collective decades of experience, I'm inclined to believe them.