MD Is UFAPs a scam?

[Frogger27]

@Gurby I was leaning towards doing Uworld 2x vs only my misses for second pass but I think this solidified my decision to do 2 full passes

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[libertyyne]

@Gurby I was leaning towards doing Uworld 2x vs only my misses for second pass but I think this solidified my decision to do 2 full passes

thats interesting, because when i look at the data, and gurbys argument, I arrive to the opposite conclusion.

 

[FindersFee5]

If you're just using Kaplan to supplement the stuff from class it is fine, but you really only need one qbank, and that is uworld. UW twice>>>>>UW once plus Kaplan

I haven't taken Step yet and i'm only 25% of the way through UWorld, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

I really think Kaplan was helpful. The WTF questions in Kaplan are very similar (if more numerous) to the WTF questions on NBMEs. Learning to sit with the discomfort of having no idea what's going on and then go back and work through the question to eliminate what answers you can to get to an educated guess of 2-3 choices has been invaluable for me on the 2 NBMEs I've taken.

In UWorld, those questions rarely come up. There will be questions about some aspect of something I don't know, or questions that I can't figure out, but I have yet to see one of those "COME ON THAT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR HOW COULD YOU ASK THAT" questions. All the questions are really good and are meant to teach you something. But those totally unfair questions do exist, and it's important to practice how to deal with them, both experientially/emotionally and as a test taker.

thats interesting, because when i look at the data, and gurbys argument, I arrive to the opposite conclusion.

Yeah, seems like basically the only thing that those data say is that less than one pass through Uworld is harmful (just eyeballing if you binned the scores as <1 pass and >/= 1 pass).

 

[Mad Jack]

thats interesting, because when i look at the data, and gurbys argument, I arrive to the opposite conclusion.

There are way too many confounders to draw reliable conclusions. Maybe people with lower first pass scores are more likely to complete a second pass, for instance. Also doesn't control for different testing conditions (such as timed vs untimed, 40 question blocks versus smaller blocks, etc)

 

[Mad Jack]

I haven't taken Step yet and i'm only 25% of the way through UWorld, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

I really think Kaplan was helpful. The WTF questions in Kaplan are very similar (if more numerous) to the WTF questions on NBMEs. Learning to sit with the discomfort of having no idea what's going on and then go back and work through the question to eliminate what answers you can to get to an educated guess of 2-3 choices has been invaluable for me on the 2 NBMEs I've taken.

In UWorld, those questions rarely come up. There will be questions about some aspect of something I don't know, or questions that I can't figure out, but I have yet to see one of those "COME ON THAT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR HOW COULD YOU ASK THAT" questions. All the questions are really good and are meant to teach you something. But those totally unfair questions do exist, and it's important to practice how to deal with them, both experientially/emotionally and as a test taker.



Yeah, seems like basically the only thing that those data say is that less than one pass through Uworld is harmful (just eyeballing if you binned the scores as <1 pass and >/= 1 pass).

Having actually taken Step 1, I've gotta say UW was much more representative of the material. There wasn't a single question on the actual exam that felt unfair or out of left field, every single one I was unsure about I knew I had covered previously and that if I'd just paid a little more attention during dedicated I would have easily gotten it. Step 1 is by far the most well-written, fair exam I have ever taken in my life. Kaplan was a lot of out there BS that wasn't at all like the real deal.

 

[Frogger27]

thats interesting, because when i look at the data, and gurbys argument, I arrive to the opposite conclusion.

I did not elaborate enough- I have already completed Kaplan and about 50% of Rx. Started UWorld a couple of weeks ago and will probably be about 60-70% done once my dedicated starts (~6 weeks)... I figured I will probably need more questions than what a 1.5x pass of UWorld would give me and I was going to supplement with Rx if need be, but I think I am just going to do 2x UWorld since I'll have the time.

Also, as @Mad Jack referred to I am one of the people who has lower first pass score than I would like right now (granted I'm only 20% through). I figured it would be worth my time to hit UWorld hard and solidify those core concepts and hopefully climb up that slope on the 2x graph vs where I am on the 1x graph

 

[libertyyne]

There are way too many confounders to draw reliable conclusions. Maybe people with lower first pass scores are more likely to complete a second pass, for instance. Also doesn't control for different testing conditions (such as timed vs untimed, 40 question blocks versus smaller blocks, etc)

I wasnt even talking about correlation of % correct compared to step score. Just raw number of questions.

Student-directed retrieval practice is a predictor of medical licensing examination performance
Preparing to take the USMLE Step 1: a survey on medical students’ self-reported study habits

https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Are Questions the Answer PPT 11-6-12 10PM.pdf

And the reddit data shows that the number of passes did not matter at all. I mean the data is not perfect, but IMHO it is better than expert opinion.

 

[Mad Jack]

I wasnt even talking about correlation of % correct compared to step score. Just raw number of questions.

Student-directed retrieval practice is a predictor of medical licensing examination performance
Preparing to take the USMLE Step 1: a survey on medical students’ self-reported study habits

https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Are Questions the Answer PPT 11-6-12 10PM.pdf

And the reddit data shows that the number of passes did not matter at all. I mean the data is not perfect, but IMHO it is better than expert opinion.

The only thing worse than no data is bad data

And we have established in the past that bad question banks can hurt scores on the DO side of things, where a study found that people who used UW alone outperformed those that used UW+COMBANK. Probably confounders there too, however.

 

[libertyyne]

The only thing worse than no data is bad data

And we have established in the past that bad question banks can hurt scores on the DO side of things, where a study found that people who used UW alone outperformed those that used UW+COMBANK. Probably confounders there too, however.

No offense, but im taking advice of the data even if it is flawed compared to a single person's experience. All the literature points to increased number of questions being beneficial , plus kaplan is not combank.

 

[Mad Jack]

No offense, but im taking advice of the data even if it is flawed compared to a single person's experience. All the literature points to increased number of questions being beneficial , plus kaplan is not combank.

Maybe Kaplan is better now than it was five years ago, but back then it was riddled with errors and largely a mess. If it is anything like it was, use it to augment first and early second year studying, but for dedicated, I would never recommend it

Again, I've just got opinions that are the sum of anecdotes, but that is the general approach of everyone in my school that got a 250+, and I'll trust what I saw worked over blind data

 

[MSTPlease]

Maybe Kaplan is better now than it was five years ago, but back then it was riddled with errors and largely a mess. If it is anything like it was, use it to augment first and early second year studying, but for dedicated, I would never recommend it

Again, I've just got opinions that are the sum of anecdotes, but that is the general approach of everyone in my school that got a 250+, and I'll trust what I saw worked over blind data

Kaplan was a straight up joke in 2012.

 

[Mad Jack]

Kaplan was a straight up joke in 2012.

And in 2014 when I used it. Maybe they've gotten better?

 

[libertyyne]

And in 2014 when I used it. Maybe they've gotten better?

Kaplan was a straight up joke in 2012.

This is just my opinion, but my uworld average and Kaplan average are fairly similar, Kaplan can be granular at times. But my Rx averge is 15 points different compared to the other two with most questions that are straight up recall of a line in fa.
Kaplan has more difficult physiology questions.

Theexplainations in Kaplan are no where near as well written as u world and some of the questions are still trash. But it iseems significantly better than rx and not as good as uworld.

It might still be trash, but one man's trash is another man's treasure.

 

[751866]

And in 2014 when I used it. Maybe they've gotten better?

Kaplan is still trash. This is actually pervasive across their testing materials for other tests as well. They had the joke materials for the MCAT and have the bad materials for stuff outside the sciences.

They conflate difficulty with vague and poorly worded items, and they get very granular as a way to make questions difficult rather than an actual question that requires deep thought and understanding.

 

[Newyawk]

Kaplan is still trash. This is actually pervasive across their testing materials for other tests as well. They had the joke materials for the MCAT and have the bad materials for stuff outside the sciences.

They conflate difficulty with vague and poorly worded items, and they get very granular as a way to make questions difficult rather than an actual question that requires deep thought and understanding.

I guess kaplan writers are retired nbme writers after all...

 

[afib123]

Contrary to this thread rx and kaplan are amazing resources if you use them well. For rx, only do medium and hard questions. I thought it was actually an amazing resource with ton of good questions and pattern recognition. Same with kaplan. I was told kaplan sucks and I only used it in dedicated because I did everything else and it's pretty good.
The trick to these q-banks is 1) you have to know your stuff down cold and using these qbanks to get from 230s-240s to the 250s range. 2) you have to know your stuff cold because you have to know which questions to skip and how to get through these quickly.
I would be doing 150-200 rx questions a day during dedicated because I knew what questions to focus on and what not to.

 

[jhenj529]

Contrary to this thread rx and kaplan are amazing resources if you use them well. For rx, only do medium and hard questions. I thought it was actually an amazing resource with ton of good questions and pattern recognition. Same with kaplan. I was told kaplan sucks and I only used it in dedicated because I did everything else and it's pretty good.
The trick to these q-banks is 1) you have to know your stuff down cold and using these qbanks to get from 230s-240s to the 250s range. 2) you have to know your stuff cold because you have to know which questions to skip and how to get through these quickly.
I would be doing 150-200 rx questions a day during dedicated because I knew what questions to focus on and what not to.

That's what I was thinking. I guess the moral of the story from this thread is that Step 1 > AOA. In regards to the question bank, do you think it is worth purchasing Kaplan if you already have RX? It sounds like as long as you do something, you're good. In regards to AOA vs Step 1, I did have a upperclassmen friend (m3) yesterday tell me that anyone can do well on step 1 if they put enough time into it. AOA on the other hand is truly an accomplishment, in that you have to "beat" out your own classmates. She might be a little bit biased, as she's an junior AOA recipient (supposed) and got in the 210s on her step. She said for her exam, she basically used only her lecture slides to study content as she felt they were sufficient.

 

[751866]

That's what I was thinking. I guess the moral of the story from this thread is that Step 1 > AOA. In regards to the question bank, do you think it is worth purchasing Kaplan if you already have RX? It sounds like as long as you do something, you're good. In regards to AOA vs Step 1, I did have a upperclassmen friend (m3) yesterday tell me that anyone can do well on step 1 if they put enough time into it. AOA on the other hand is truly an accomplishment, in that you have to "beat" out your own classmates. She might be a little bit biased, as she's an junior AOA recipient (supposed) and got in the 210s on her step. She said for her exam, she basically used only her lecture slides to study content as she felt they were sufficient.

I think it depends on the specialty you're applying for and the reputation of your school (and the person reviewing your app).

A large brand name from your school may make AOA less important because people value the name (or conversely, they may think it's more meaningful if you're AOA at a top school).
Step 1 will probably carry more weight, in general, because it's standardized and a relative measure of standing against every applicant (AOA is an unstandardized relative measure within a microcosm).
AOA might be seen as less impressive from a smaller school because well, how would you have done at a big name (or conversely, it might be more important because they assume you were at the top of your place, so you'll get the look whereas a non-AOA classmate might not).

 

[751866]

I guess kaplan writers are retired nbme writers after all...

Passive aggressive comments don't help a discussion and don't make your point. Appeal to authority arguments are logical fallacies: "These guys used to write NBME questions, therefore they do a good job."

We know that's not necessarily true: they may not have been very good at the NBME, they may have written questions in the time when the exam was much more recall than understanding, they may not care anymore to put in the same effort as when they wrote at the NBME...tons of reasons

Kaplan tends to test more minutiae that doesn't test understanding as much. Having looked at Kaplan materials for multiple science-based and non-STEM exams, Kaplan Q writers seem to slam minutiae and memorization as a method of practice rather than deep conceptual understanding. Kaplan tends to have more poorly worded and vague questions that are due to testing tiny details to simulate difficulty where as UWorld has vagueries that are due to challenging patient presentations requiring deeper understanding of the pathophysiology, for example. Kaplan seems geared more toward those with an inclination for memorization rather than understanding. The people in my class who liked Kaplan for dedicated didn't do well and this fit with their general performance. People who did well always did well and preferred UWorld after having used both.

I used Kaplan in MS1 and MS2 for practicing, but it wasn't a good tool during dedicated. I open UWorld and instantly noticed that UWorld helps produce deeper insight into the concepts rather than insisting you smash details into your head.

Anyone can look up facts and details, but not everyone gets to understanding. This is why you see people in class and on wards who sound like walking dictionaries but then can't adequately differentiate a patient presenting through the ED, they can't explain their assessment and plan strongly to an attending, and they end up doing poorly/average on NBMEs and Step (from what it appears at my school).

 

[Newyawk]

That's what I was thinking. I guess the moral of the story from this thread is that Step 1 > AOA. In regards to the question bank, do you think it is worth purchasing Kaplan if you already have RX? It sounds like as long as you do something, you're good. In regards to AOA vs Step 1, I did have a upperclassmen friend (m3) yesterday tell me that anyone can do well on step 1 if they put enough time into it. AOA on the other hand is truly an accomplishment, in that you have to "beat" out your own classmates. She might be a little bit biased, as she's an junior AOA recipient (supposed) and got in the 210s on her step. She said for her exam, she basically used only her lecture slides to study content as she felt they were sufficient.

Sounds like a major tool

 

[Newyawk]

Passive aggressive comments don't help a discussion and don't make your point. Appeal to authority arguments are logical fallacies: "These guys used to write NBME questions, therefore they do a good job."

We know that's not necessarily true: they may not have been very good at the NBME, they may have written questions in the time when the exam was much more recall than understanding, they may not care anymore to put in the same effort as when they wrote at the NBME...tons of reasons

Kaplan tends to test more minutiae that doesn't test understanding as much. Having looked at Kaplan materials for multiple science-based and non-STEM exams, Kaplan Q writers seem to slam minutiae and memorization as a method of practice rather than deep conceptual understanding. Kaplan tends to have more poorly worded and vague questions that are due to testing tiny details to simulate difficulty where as UWorld has vagueries that are due to challenging patient presentations requiring deeper understanding of the pathophysiology, for example. Kaplan seems geared more toward those with an inclination for memorization rather than understanding. The people in my class who liked Kaplan for dedicated didn't do well and this fit with their general performance. People who did well always did well and preferred UWorld after having used both.

I used Kaplan in MS1 and MS2 for practicing, but it wasn't a good tool during dedicated. I open UWorld and instantly noticed that UWorld helps produce deeper insight into the concepts rather than insisting you smash details into your head.

Anyone can look up facts and details, but not everyone gets to understanding. This is why you see people in class and on wards who sound like walking dictionaries but then can't adequately differentiate a patient presenting through the ED, they can't explain their assessment and plan strongly to an attending, and they end up doing poorly/average on NBMEs and Step (from what it appears at my school).

You must be a joy at parties

 

[FindersFee5]

In regards to AOA vs Step 1, I did have a upperclassmen friend (m3) yesterday tell me that anyone can do well on step 1 if they put enough time into it. AOA on the other hand is truly an accomplishment, in that you have to "beat" out your own classmates. She might be a little bit biased, as she's an junior AOA recipient (supposed) and got in the 210s on her step. She said for her exam, she basically used only her lecture slides to study content as she felt they were sufficient.

Yeah she sounds like she's trying to justify her decision. But a 210 would get her screened out of almost all surgical subspecialties, derm, IR, and higher ranked IM and gen surg institutions. AOA doesn't matter if they don't even read your app.

An AOA + 210 might be better than no AOA + 250 in something like EM? But SLOEs are king in EM anyways, so IDK if it would matter that much.

I would say don't put too much trust in what she says. Men lie women lie STEP 1 DON'T LIE.

 

[libertyyne]

That's what I was thinking. I guess the moral of the story from this thread is that Step 1 > AOA. In regards to the question bank, do you think it is worth purchasing Kaplan if you already have RX? It sounds like as long as you do something, you're good. In regards to AOA vs Step 1, I did have a upperclassmen friend (m3) yesterday tell me that anyone can do well on step 1 if they put enough time into it. AOA on the other hand is truly an accomplishment, in that you have to "beat" out your own classmates. She might be a little bit biased, as she's an junior AOA recipient (supposed) and got in the 210s on her step. She said for her exam, she basically used only her lecture slides to study content as she felt they were sufficient.

Let us know when she discovers a passion for primary care.

Passive aggressive comments don't help a discussion and don't make your point. Appeal to authority arguments are logical fallacies: "These guys used to write NBME questions, therefore they do a good job."

We know that's not necessarily true: they may not have been very good at the NBME, they may have written questions in the time when the exam was much more recall than understanding, they may not care anymore to put in the same effort as when they wrote at the NBME...tons of reasons

Kaplan tends to test more minutiae that doesn't test understanding as much. Having looked at Kaplan materials for multiple science-based and non-STEM exams, Kaplan Q writers seem to slam minutiae and memorization as a method of practice rather than deep conceptual understanding. Kaplan tends to have more poorly worded and vague questions that are due to testing tiny details to simulate difficulty where as UWorld has vagueries that are due to challenging patient presentations requiring deeper understanding of the pathophysiology, for example. Kaplan seems geared more toward those with an inclination for memorization rather than understanding. The people in my class who liked Kaplan for dedicated didn't do well and this fit with their general performance. People who did well always did well and preferred UWorld after having used both.

I used Kaplan in MS1 and MS2 for practicing, but it wasn't a good tool during dedicated. I open UWorld and instantly noticed that UWorld helps produce deeper insight into the concepts rather than insisting you smash details into your head.

Anyone can look up facts and details, but not everyone gets to understanding. This is why you see people in class and on wards who sound like walking dictionaries but then can't adequately differentiate a patient presenting through the ED, they can't explain their assessment and plan strongly to an attending, and they end up doing poorly/average on NBMEs and Step (from what it appears at my school).

The point you missed was that the NBME exams are actually like that, they will test on minutae and second order questions, with some stuff out of left field. Kaplan mimics that.

No sane person is claiming that Kaplan is superior to Uworld. What I am questioning is the dogma of doing uworld 2x, vs doing additional questions through something like kaplan.

 

[longhaul3]

That's what I was thinking. I guess the moral of the story from this thread is that Step 1 > AOA. In regards to the question bank, do you think it is worth purchasing Kaplan if you already have RX? It sounds like as long as you do something, you're good. In regards to AOA vs Step 1, I did have a upperclassmen friend (m3) yesterday tell me that anyone can do well on step 1 if they put enough time into it. AOA on the other hand is truly an accomplishment, in that you have to "beat" out your own classmates. She might be a little bit biased, as she's an junior AOA recipient (supposed) and got in the 210s on her step. She said for her exam, she basically used only her lecture slides to study content as she felt they were sufficient.

Unfortunately your friend is kidding herself, understandably though given her situation. AOA is an accomplishment; Step 1 is king. I'm not sure what her point was when she told you she only used her lecture slides to study...the fact that she scored in the 210s should answer your question "is UFAPs a scam" straight away.

I disagree that anyone can do well with enough time (depends on what we mean by "well," but let's say "really well" and 250+). Everyone has a ceiling determined in part by test taking ability, in part by some sort of innate intelligence, and in part by hard work and discipline. If you spend 3 months in dedicated study and score 215, another 6 months isn't going to get you to 250; on the other hand, some people will study for 4 weeks and score 260.

Besides everyone having his/her own ceiling, the returns start to diminish very quickly because the resources are limited. UWorld for most people is the be all and end all (I agree), and once you finish it, you will never have another resource of that quality, no matter how long you spend studying, and the longer you go after you finish UWorld, the more you will have forgotten from it. This is why I think the biggest mistake people make in studying is starting UWorld before dedicated and just doing random blocks of 40 questions for 8 weeks. In my opinion an ideal study plan revolves 100% around a first pass of UWorld, studying each system individually while leaving some percentage left over for random practice. Finishing UWorld before dedicated so you can make a second pass is a huge mistake in my eyes because you've wasted the true value of the questions right when you need them—when you're gearing up to take the exam. Sprinkle some CBSSAs in there to check your progress and take the exam as soon as you can after finishing UWorld, assuming your predicted scores are satisfactory. The cherry on top is that you only need a 90-day subscription without resets.

 

[Newyawk]

Unfortunately your friend is kidding herself, understandably though given her situation. AOA is an accomplishment; Step 1 is king. I'm not sure what her point was when she told you she only used her lecture slides to study...the fact that she scored in the 210s should answer your question "is UFAPs a scam" straight away.

I disagree that anyone can do well with enough time (depends on what we mean by "well," but let's say "really well" and 250+). Everyone has a ceiling determined in part by test taking ability, in part by some sort of innate intelligence, and in part by hard work and discipline. If you spend 3 months in dedicated study and score 215, another 6 months isn't going to get you to 250; on the other hand, some people will study for 4 weeks and score 260.

Besides everyone having his/her own ceiling, the returns start to diminish very quickly because the resources are limited. UWorld for most people is the be all and end all (I agree), and once you finish it, you will never have another resource of that quality, no matter how long you spend studying, and the longer you go after you finish UWorld, the more you will have forgotten from it. This is why I think the biggest mistake people make in studying is starting UWorld before dedicated and just doing random blocks of 40 questions for 8 weeks. In my opinion an ideal study plan revolves 100% around a first pass of UWorld, studying each system individually while leaving some percentage left over for random practice. Finishing UWorld before dedicated so you can make a second pass is a huge mistake in my eyes because you've wasted the true value of the questions right when you need them—when you're gearing up to take the exam. Sprinkle some CBSSAs in there to check your progress and take the exam as soon as you can after finishing UWorld, assuming your predicted scores are satisfactory. The cherry on top is that you only need a 90-day subscription without resets.

Agree with the former, strongly disagree with the latter argument. There are very few sources that can be learned in just one pass, and uworld serves as a learning tool of both system-specific information as well as integrative information. You defeat your own argument by stating its easy to forget but that a 2nd pass isnt valuable. Not sure how you rationalize that? Not enough time?

 

[Newyawk]

Unfortunately your friend is kidding herself, understandably though given her situation. AOA is an accomplishment; Step 1 is king. I'm not sure what her point was when she told you she only used her lecture slides to study...the fact that she scored in the 210s should answer your question "is UFAPs a scam" straight away.

I disagree that anyone can do well with enough time (depends on what we mean by "well," but let's say "really well" and 250+). Everyone has a ceiling determined in part by test taking ability, in part by some sort of innate intelligence, and in part by hard work and discipline. If you spend 3 months in dedicated study and score 215, another 6 months isn't going to get you to 250; on the other hand, some people will study for 4 weeks and score 260.

Besides everyone having his/her own ceiling, the returns start to diminish very quickly because the resources are limited. UWorld for most people is the be all and end all (I agree), and once you finish it, you will never have another resource of that quality, no matter how long you spend studying, and the longer you go after you finish UWorld, the more you will have forgotten from it. This is why I think the biggest mistake people make in studying is starting UWorld before dedicated and just doing random blocks of 40 questions for 8 weeks. In my opinion an ideal study plan revolves 100% around a first pass of UWorld, studying each system individually while leaving some percentage left over for random practice. Finishing UWorld before dedicated so you can make a second pass is a huge mistake in my eyes because you've wasted the true value of the questions right when you need them—when you're gearing up to take the exam. Sprinkle some CBSSAs in there to check your progress and take the exam as soon as you can after finishing UWorld, assuming your predicted scores are satisfactory. The cherry on top is that you only need a 90-day subscription without resets.

I would add that step 1 score begins to be determined on day 1 of med school based on how seriously a student takes their individual learning and personal effort/ability to seek out unanswered questions and gaps in knowledge. Most students stream through preclinicals just absorbing what is in front of them without going the extra step and thinking about what is left. Not just the unanswered what but also having a clear understanding of the why. The example i like to give is the association of cerebral aneurysms and ADPKD and failing to recognize the hypertensive component that links the two.

 

[libertyyne]

I would add that step 1 score begins to be determined on day 1 of med school based on how seriously a student takes their individual learning and personal effort/ability to seek out unanswered questions and gaps in knowledge. Most students stream through preclinicals just absorbing what is in front of them without going the extra step and thinking about what is left. Not just the unanswered what but also having a clear understanding of the why. The example i like to give is the association of cerebral aneurysms and ADPKD and failing to recognize the hypertensive component that links the two.

Pappi does that for me.

But if you arent thinking about the implications of what you are learning and the connections what is the point even of learning stuff.

An example is angioedema. You should be able to reason through the thinking of C1-esterase inhibitor deficency is assocaited with it , so correcting that artificially may improve the situation. Lo and behold there is an actual liposomal version of the the C1 esterase inhibitor that was trialed in EU for the condition. It didnt work (thats a different story), but you should be able to make those connections that dont exist and expand on the information you do have to memorize.

Otherwise wtf is the point even of pre-clinicals.

 

[longhaul3]

Agree with the former, strongly disagree with the latter argument. There are very few sources that can be learned in just one pass, and uworld serves as a learning tool of both system-specific information as well as integrative information. You defeat your own argument by stating its easy to forget but that a 2nd pass isnt valuable. Not sure how you rationalize that? Not enough time?

I don't think anyone needs to learn every word in UWorld. I think the value of it is in the rigor and novelty of the questions and then of course the explanations. Doing a bunch of difficult, novel questions that are the best available approximate of Step 1 is the best way to prepare. Going through the same content over and over is not, in my opinion. So once you finish a first pass of UWorld, you'll never be able to get back to that level of preparedness again. If someone is dying to start studying before dedicated, I say review the content, ideally from a few different angles (school lecture, First Aid, etc.) before dedicated instead of starting UWorld. Then you're setting yourself up to get the most out of it and you'll be as prepared as possible when you finish.

I don't think my point is self-defeating because UWorld is not just about content. As soon as you finish that first pass, you start losing your sharpness and overall readiness for the exam. Doing a second pass will not get you back there, in my opinion, because the novelty and rigor are compromised.

I would add that step 1 score begins to be determined on day 1 of med school based on how seriously a student takes their individual learning and personal effort/ability to seek out unanswered questions and gaps in knowledge. Most students stream through preclinicals just absorbing what is in front of them without going the extra step and thinking about what is left. Not just the unanswered what but also having a clear understanding of the why. The example i like to give is the association of cerebral aneurysms and ADPKD and failing to recognize the hypertensive component that links the two.

I strongly agree with this. My main advice for anyone starting med school is to learn the content—not just the facts, the content—as well as you can on the first pass.

However, aneurysms in ADPKD patients are not caused by hypertension (if that's what you're saying). Of course existing aneurysms are more likely to bleed if the patient is hypertensive, and the patient is more likely to be hypertensive with ADPKD, but there is not really an underlying causality as in ADPKD -> hypertension -> aneurysm. The best understanding right now is that the gene defect itself is also the cause of aneurysm formation.

 

[Newyawk]

I don't think anyone needs to learn every word in UWorld. I think the value of it is in the rigor and novelty of the questions and then of course the explanations. Doing a bunch of difficult, novel questions that are the best available approximate of Step 1 is the best way to prepare. Going through the same content over and over is not, in my opinion. So once you finish a first pass of UWorld, you'll never be able to get back to that level of preparedness again. If someone is dying to start studying before dedicated, I say review the content, ideally from a few different angles (school lecture, First Aid, etc.) before dedicated instead of starting UWorld. Then you're setting yourself up to get the most out of it and you'll be as prepared as possible when you finish.

I don't think my point is self-defeating because UWorld is not just about content. As soon as you finish that first pass, you start losing your sharpness and overall readiness for the exam. Doing a second pass will not get you back there, in my opinion, because the novelty and rigor are compromised.


I strongly agree with this. My main advice for anyone starting med school is to learn the content—not just the facts, the content—as well as you can on the first pass.

However, aneurysms in ADPKD patients are not caused by hypertension (if that's what you're saying). Of course existing aneurysms are more likely to bleed if the patient is hypertensive, and the patient is more likely to be hypertensive with ADPKD, but there is not really an underlying causality as in ADPKD -> hypertension -> aneurysm. The best understanding right now is that the gene defect itself is also the cause of aneurysm formation.

Nice. I didnt know that.

I hear your first argument but still think a full first pass over the course of a year with classes and then a second pass on timed random during dedicated is better than one pass alone. Im biased though bc this is what i did.

 

[libertyyne]

I don't think anyone needs to learn every word in UWorld. I think the value of it is in the rigor and novelty of the questions and then of course the explanations. Doing a bunch of difficult, novel questions that are the best available approximate of Step 1 is the best way to prepare. Going through the same content over and over is not, in my opinion. So once you finish a first pass of UWorld, you'll never be able to get back to that level of preparedness again. If someone is dying to start studying before dedicated, I say review the content, ideally from a few different angles (school lecture, First Aid, etc.) before dedicated instead of starting UWorld. Then you're setting yourself up to get the most out of it and you'll be as prepared as possible when you finish.

I don't think my point is self-defeating because UWorld is not just about content. As soon as you finish that first pass, you start losing your sharpness and overall readiness for the exam. Doing a second pass will not get you back there, in my opinion, because the novelty and rigor are compromised.


I strongly agree with this. My main advice for anyone starting med school is to learn the content—not just the facts, the content—as well as you can on the first pass.

However, aneurysms in ADPKD patients are not caused by hypertension (if that's what you're saying). Of course existing aneurysms are more likely to bleed if the patient is hypertensive, and the patient is more likely to be hypertensive with ADPKD, but there is not really an underlying causality as in ADPKD -> hypertension -> aneurysm. The best understanding right now is that the gene defect itself is also the cause of aneurysm formation.

Could you link that source please. The small studies that I have found indicated that berry aneurysms were more prevalent in ADPKD patients with increased BPs.

 

[longhaul3]

Nice. I didnt know that.

I hear your first argument but still think a full first pass over the course of a year with classes and then a second pass on timed random during dedicated is better than one pass alone. Im biased though bc this is what i did.

Fair enough—I know my opinion is just an opinion. Your method is basically what I (and probably most) ended up doing for CK, doing the first pass during the relevant clerkships and then hammering through a second pass before the exam. Obviously it's a different situation because CK doesn't matter too much, but I appreciate the idea.

How would you feel about using one of the lesser question banks for the first pass during classes? I only used my class notes during pre-clinical (and was fortunate to have a good pre-clinical education, I'm learning now), but if I were to do it again I would consider doing it that way and still saving UWorld for dedicated.

 

[Newyawk]

Fair enough—I know my opinion is just an opinion. Your method is basically what I (and probably most) ended up doing for CK, doing the first pass during the relevant clerkships and then hammering through a second pass before the exam. Obviously it's a different situation because CK doesn't matter too much, but I appreciate the idea.

How would you feel about using one of the lesser question banks for the first pass during classes? I only used my class notes during pre-clinical (and was fortunate to have a good pre-clinical education, I'm learning now), but if I were to do it again I would consider doing it that way and still saving UWorld for dedicated.

I think if youre going to “save” uworld for dedicated then doing one of the others is essential. In fact, i recommend that students do uworld and at least Rx or kaplan during the year. Im all about questions though.

 

[libertyyne]

PMID 10495791 for an example of evidence regarding the pathogenesis.

Also, in addition to the overall increased risk in ADPKD, aneurysms cluster in families with ADPKD and the position of the mutation predicts them to some extent (PMID 12842373). These findings are more suggestive of a primary genetic basis than a secondary hypertensive cause. I think there is also a study on ruptured aneurysm cases and a lot of patients had normal renal function, which I know is more tenuous for a serious academic discussion but I'll throw that out there on an online message board. Can you share the studies you're referring to?

(I'm not a nephrologist so go easy on me if anyone knows this is wrong)

Thanks, I will check those out.
Kidney Blood Press Res 2014;39:630-635
Blood Pressure and Intracranial Aneurysms in Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease

Not that im a nephrologist, the first paper does show a possible link , but the neither papers control for possible BP differences in the two genotypes.

 

[CyrusHabs7695]

"Anyone can do well on step, just use your class notes" *pulls a 210*

 

[751866]

You must be a joy at parties

At parties, people are just hanging out, not being passive aggressive. I'm sorry if it was difficult to reply directly to the content of the argument rather than responding with a personal attack. Virtual high-fives from the internet crew doesn't make your argument solid... Whatever makes you happy, I suppose.

 

[751866]

The point you missed was that the NBME exams are actually like that, they will test on minutae and second order questions, with some stuff out of left field. Kaplan mimics that.

No sane person is claiming that Kaplan is superior to Uworld. What I am questioning is the dogma of doing uworld 2x, vs doing additional questions through something like kaplan.

I didn't miss any point because I've completed the NBMEs in preclinical and clinical years. It's possible we have different item sets, but only on occasion did the NBME exams test minutiae but more frequently favored left field questions that required deeper conceptual knowledge (this is why kids who were only good at memorization tanked horribly on NBMEs and Step 1). Kaplan Q bank did not mimic that in my experience (whereas UWorld is far superior). I don't even know if I replied to you, originally (I replied to the poster who claimed the Kaplan writers were good 'just because..." without offering any thought about what makes a good question resource). I'm not disagreeing with your opinion that Uworld twice is dumb. I agree with that. Personally, I didn't even make a full pass of UWorld for Step 1/2, but I definitely wouldn't do a second pass. At that point, most likely you will have enough recall about questions or answers (even faint) that you can answer questions correctly without improved understanding.

So, respectfully, having done the NBMEs and used Kaplan during that time, I hardly thought NBMEs tested minutiae.

 

[Newyawk]

I didn't miss any point because I've completed the NBMEs in preclinical and clinical years. It's possible we have different item sets, but only on occasion did the NBME exams test minutiae but more frequently favored left field questions that required deeper conceptual knowledge (this is why kids who were only good at memorization tanked horribly on NBMEs and Step 1). Kaplan Q bank did not mimic that in my experience (whereas UWorld is far superior). I don't even know if I replied to you, originally (I replied to the poster who claimed the Kaplan writers were good 'just because..." without offering any thought about what makes a good question resource). I'm not disagreeing with your opinion that Uworld twice is dumb. I agree with that. Personally, I didn't even make a full pass of UWorld for Step 1/2, but I definitely wouldn't do a second pass. At that point, most likely you will have enough recall about questions or answers (even faint) that you can answer questions correctly without improved understanding.

So, respectfully, having done the NBMEs and used Kaplan during that time, I hardly thought NBMEs tested minutiae.

As somebody who argues incessantly myself that a thorough understanding of the material is necessary to do exceptionally well on the boards (just ask @TheIllusionist), to claim little minutiae is also tested is just patently false. Testing minutiae in our world is defined as testing facts/details that are not common knowledge (eg random diagnosis that no med student has ever heard of like benign migratory glossitis, or some random poison that causes a specific reaction), are nitpicky (what gene is affected in achondroplasia for example), cannot be reasoned through with logic/knowledge of other facts (eg the cause of hypotension in tension pneumo) and/or in the broader scope of medicine are probably inconsequential (im tired of giving examples). Thats my definition at least, im sure some others would agree but tweak it a little.
Ive had many, many questions throughout the years on both steps, preclinical nbmes, and shelf exams that have met these requirments.

 

[751866]

As somebody who argues incessantly myself that a thorough understanding of the material is necessary to do exceptionally well on the boards (just ask @TheIllusionist), to claim little minutiae is also tested is just patently false. Testing minutiae in our world is defined as testing facts/details that are not common knowledge (eg random diagnosis that no med student has ever heard of like benign migratory glossitis, or some random poison that causes a specific reaction), are nitpicky (what gene is affected in achondroplasia for example), cannot be reasoned through with logic/knowledge of other facts (eg the cause of hypotension in tension pneumo) and/or in the broader scope of medicine are probably inconsequential (im tired of giving examples). Thats my definition at least, im sure some others would agree but tweak it a little.
Ive had many, many questions throughout the years on both steps, preclinical nbmes, and shelf exams that have met these requirments.

It sounds like your definition of minutiae is what I considered standard baseline knowledge. Knowing hypertension guidelines and cutoffs isn't minutiae but it basically is a set of discrete facts that don't require too much conceptual understanding. I found the NBMEs and Steps to be testing understanding, usually coupled with some baseline knowledge and facts, rather than questions that can't be answered without minutiae (which I'm referring to as obscure details [relative to what's expected in medicine, not general knowledge] that don't impact >90% of conceptual understanding).

Even acknowledging that you will see some kind of minutiae on the boards and NBMEs, this is not nearly a majority or plurality of questions you will see, so I don't think Kaplan isn't trash.

And still, your argument was that the quality of Kaplan was good, because they had former NBME question writers on board. None of what's been said justifies that claim.

 

[Newyawk]

It sounds like your definition of minutiae is what I considered standard baseline knowledge. Knowing hypertension guidelines and cutoffs isn't minutiae but it basically is a set of discrete facts that don't require too much conceptual understanding. I found the NBMEs and Steps to be testing understanding, usually coupled with some baseline knowledge and facts, rather than questions that can't be answered without minutiae (which I'm referring to as obscure details [relative to what's expected in medicine, not general knowledge] that don't impact >90% of conceptual understanding).

I never said hypertension guidelines is minutiae....
also i have no idea what you said afterwards or how you refuted any of my points

 

[751866]

I never said hypertension guidelines is minutiae....
also i have no idea what you said afterwards

I was using HTN as an example (I never claimed you said it was, either).

I said that the questions tested on Steps and NBME (in my experience) required baseline knowledge and facts and the understanding of concepts. The tests were not primarily testing minutiae where you can't answer correctly if you don't know the fact. I then said I still think Kaplan is trash because, even if you acknowledge there will be a few minutiae questions on the boards, Kaplan almost solely approaches the Qbank from a minutiae perspective.

Again, nothing you've said so far supports your general claim that Kaplan is good quality because they employ ex-NBME question writers.

 

[751866]

I never said hypertension guidelines is minutiae....
also i have no idea what you said afterwards or how you refuted any of my points

We're doing this weird edit-update dance.

Nothing you said really needed refuting. You've moved the goal posts quite a bit here by trying to now argue about what the exams test.

Your initial statement was that Kaplan is good because they used ex-NBME writers. You haven't supported that fallacious argument, but you have changed the talking points. This isn't very complicated.

 

[Newyawk]

We're doing this weird edit-update dance.

Nothing you said really needed refuting. You've moved the goal posts quite a bit here by trying to now argue about what the exams test.

Your initial statement was that Kaplan is good because they used ex-NBME writers. You haven't supported that fallacious argument, but you have changed the talking points. This isn't very complicated.

My dude. I was joking. It was a joke. Hence the no fun at parties.
Youre wrong. Kaplan doesnt just test minutiae. Their physio Qs are extremely creative and many people agree with me.
Every QBank tests minutiae. Uworld does it too, and they get away with it bc theyre so widely regarded.

 

[MSTPlease]

This is just my opinion, but my uworld average and Kaplan average are fairly similar, Kaplan can be granular at times. But my Rx averge is 15 points different compared to the other two with most questions that are straight up recall of a line in fa.
Kaplan has more difficult physiology questions.

Theexplainations in Kaplan are no where near as well written as u world and some of the questions are still trash. But it iseems significantly better than rx and not as good as uworld.

It might still be trash, but one man's trash is another man's treasure.

I used Rx back in 2012 during my classes and if you're going to use an objectively inferior Qbank (i.e. not UWorld) I think the one that is designed specifically around memorizing everything in First Aid is actually better even if it's "further" from the real thing in style. Back in the day Kaplan's reputation was on extremely fact based questions that were not representative of USMLE style *AND* on material that wasn't high yield. At least you knew the Rx material would be on the test.

As I said, this is all super outdated opinions.

 

[TheIllusionist]

just do zanki all day and memorize u world and you can score high enough not to barred from any specialty. that's all that matters. don't over complicate it. i did more "thinking" in my general physics 1 class than all of med school combined. ask a med student to explain why doppler tests for sickle cell patients looked for higher velocity in a narrowed arterial lumen. many will falsely cite poiseuille's law, if they cite anything, and be largely mistaken and not see the contradiction.

you don't have to deeply understand squat. I went from scoring 30th percentile my first year to 70 percentile my 2nd year (I calculated these based on means and SDs at my mid tier school that releases those after every exam but I go to a pure pass fail school), to 82 percentile on STEP1, to honoring all my clerkships with scores all in the 99th percentile on shelves (only exception was OB which was 95th and surgery which was 80th and barely honored because these were first couple clerkships) by changing my entire strategy to just doing thousands of flash cards and memorizing u world by high lighting stuff i didn't know and rerereading it a bunch of times. yeah sometimes i dabbled with goljan and devirgilios but looking back those were largely padding to make me "feel" more secure. When i saw shelf questions, I literally recalled the card and table that had the answer in it.

this **** is mostly glorified recall. btw at my mid tier school, we had some 260s and 270s applying to competitive **** get **** on and go to lower tier programs than people with 240s and 250s. it was obvious which personality types were hated on (think introvert, poor vocabulary and sentence structure, lacking in charisma, inability to think on the spot with weird questions because their minds were robotically setup only to cram facts and regurgitate...srs not srs... etc.)

Kaplan believe it or not has some of the most eloquent critical thinking style questions in pathophys and phys. They suck at everything else. Just like on the MCAT they were only good at the physical sciences section (old version)

U world straight up hunts for new guidelines (like giving ****ing hep A vaccine to younger than 41 but immunglobulin older than 41) to write questions. Yeah sometimes you see something interesting like electrical alterans, pulsus paradoxus, all the pressures equalizing in the chambers, etc is tamponade, but even that can be easily remembered and isn't intuitively hard at all to "get." don't get me started on arrhythmias and ACLS. if a the average 260 scorer can explain mechanistically well why CHADSVASC only applies to non valvular afib rather than a fib in general , I will be thoroughly impressed. Of course some can do that type of stuff. But many can't. That to me has consistently shown that deep understanding and rationalization of pathophysiology might help but is certainly not a requisite for scoring high.

@Newyawk you know how to pull my ass into these things lol. I really did enjoy some of our old discussions on the topic.

btw, I personally know two non URM males with low 250s scores and fair amount (not incredible) research that matched into elite tier (like top 5) uro and ENT residencies respectively. n=2 I know. anecdote I know. And a 250 is acheivable by pretty much anyone that meritocratically gets into med school. we can argue all day a 270 requires more "genius." but looking at the match, that is so impractical. the returns seem to be a lot more diminishing than people project on here.

Medicine is quite fair for allopathic MD students who get in meritocratically. they have the tools to succeed barring extremely extenuating personal circumstances and an extreme stubbornness not to conform to proven strategies.

 

[Gurby]

changing my entire strategy to just doing thousands of flash cards and memorizing u world

 

[Newyawk]

just do zanki all day and memorize u world and you can score high enough not to barred from any specialty. that's all that matters. don't over complicate it. i did more "thinking" in my general physics 1 class than all of med school combined. ask a med student to explain why doppler tests for sickle cell patients looked for higher velocity in a narrowed arterial lumen. many will falsely cite poiseuille's law, if they cite anything, and be largely mistaken and not see the contradiction.

you don't have to deeply understand squat. I went from scoring 30th percentile my first year to 70 percentile my 2nd year (I calculated these based on means and SDs at my mid tier school that releases those after every exam but I go to a pure pass fail school), to 82 percentile on STEP1, to honoring all my clerkships with scores all in the 99th percentile on shelves (only exception was OB which was 95th and surgery which was 80th and barely honored because these were first couple clerkships) by changing my entire strategy to just doing thousands of flash cards and memorizing u world by high lighting stuff i didn't know and rerereading it a bunch of times. yeah sometimes i dabbled with goljan and devirgilios but looking back those were largely padding to make me "feel" more secure. When i saw shelf questions, I literally recalled the card and table that had the answer in it.

this **** is mostly glorified recall. btw at my mid tier school, we had some 260s and 270s applying to competitive **** get **** on and go to lower tier programs than people with 240s and 250s. it was obvious which personality types were hated on (think introvert, poor vocabulary and sentence structure, lacking in charisma, inability to think on the spot with weird questions because their minds were robotically setup only to cram facts and regurgitate...srs not srs... etc.)

Kaplan believe it or not has some of the most eloquent critical thinking style questions in pathophys and phys. They suck at everything else. Just like on the MCAT they were only good at the physical sciences section (old version)

U world straight up hunts for new guidelines (like giving ****ing hep A vaccine to younger than 41 but immunglobulin older than 41) to write questions. Yeah sometimes you see something interesting like electrical alterans, pulsus paradoxus, all the pressures equalizing in the chambers, etc is tamponade, but even that can be easily remembered and isn't intuitively hard at all to "get." don't get me started on arrhythmias and ACLS. if a the average 260 scorer can explain mechanistically well why CHADSVASC only applies to non valvular afib rather than a fib in general , I will be thoroughly impressed. Of course some can do that type of stuff. But many can't. That to me has consistently shown that deep understanding and rationalization of pathophysiology might help but is certainly not a requisite for scoring high.

@Newyawk you know how to pull my ass into these things lol. I really did enjoy some of our old discussions on the topic.

I cant confidently answer either of those Qs (maybe if you gave me some choices haha).
Whats interesting to me is that ive also done very well at the standardized exams and yet have never done spaced repetition. Heck, ive never as much as reviewed my uworld notes.
You could argue that by doing literally >15k questions in addition to FAP and others that i basically performed spaced repetition without realizing it. I’d probably have to agree with you actually....

 

[jhenj529]

just do zanki all day and memorize u world and you can score high enough not to barred from any specialty. that's all that matters. don't over complicate it. i did more "thinking" in my general physics 1 class than all of med school combined. ask a med student to explain why doppler tests for sickle cell patients looked for higher velocity in a narrowed arterial lumen. many will falsely cite poiseuille's law, if they cite anything, and be largely mistaken and not see the contradiction.

you don't have to deeply understand squat. I went from scoring 30th percentile my first year to 70 percentile my 2nd year (I calculated these based on means and SDs at my mid tier school that releases those after every exam but I go to a pure pass fail school), to 82 percentile on STEP1, to honoring all my clerkships with scores all in the 99th percentile on shelves (only exception was OB which was 95th and surgery which was 80th and barely honored because these were first couple clerkships) by changing my entire strategy to just doing thousands of flash cards and memorizing u world by high lighting stuff i didn't know and rerereading it a bunch of times. yeah sometimes i dabbled with goljan and devirgilios but looking back those were largely padding to make me "feel" more secure. When i saw shelf questions, I literally recalled the card and table that had the answer in it.

this **** is mostly glorified recall. btw at my mid tier school, we had some 260s and 270s applying to competitive **** get **** on and go to lower tier programs than people with 240s and 250s. it was obvious which personality types were hated on (think introvert, poor vocabulary and sentence structure, lacking in charisma, inability to think on the spot with weird questions because their minds were robotically setup only to cram facts and regurgitate...srs not srs... etc.)

Kaplan believe it or not has some of the most eloquent critical thinking style questions in pathophys and phys. They suck at everything else. Just like on the MCAT they were only good at the physical sciences section (old version)

U world straight up hunts for new guidelines (like giving ****ing hep A vaccine to younger than 41 but immunglobulin older than 41) to write questions. Yeah sometimes you see something interesting like electrical alterans, pulsus paradoxus, all the pressures equalizing in the chambers, etc is tamponade, but even that can be easily remembered and isn't intuitively hard at all to "get." don't get me started on arrhythmias and ACLS. if a the average 260 scorer can explain mechanistically well why CHADSVASC only applies to non valvular afib rather than a fib in general , I will be thoroughly impressed. Of course some can do that type of stuff. But many can't. That to me has consistently shown that deep understanding and rationalization of pathophysiology might help but is certainly not a requisite for scoring high.

@Newyawk you know how to pull my ass into these things lol. I really did enjoy some of our old discussions on the topic.

btw, I personally know two non URM males with low 250s scores and fair amount (not incredible) research that matched into elite tier (like top 5) uro and ENT residencies respectively. n=2 I know. anecdote I know. And a 250 is acheivable by pretty much anyone that meritocratically gets into med school. we can argue all day a 270 requires more "genius." but looking at the match, that is so impractical. the returns seem to be a lot more diminishing than people project on here.

Medicine is quite fair for allopathic MD students who get in meritocratically. they have the tools to succeed barring extremely extenuating personal circumstances and an extreme stubbornness not to conform to proven strategies.

I have to ask, in your opinion, do you think medical school is a sham in terms of difficulty? I feel like a lot of my friends in undergrad, would never be able to keep the level of work effort required for a sustainable amount of time. What about being a doctor in general? Also, I like the idea of gaining a deep understanding of physiology. Do you think Kaplan is worth paying for if your school pays for RX aleady?

 

[Med Ed]

I'll just summarize the rest of this thread:

"Kaplan!"
"Rx!"
"Zanki!"
"Rx!"
"Kaplan!"
"I knew this M3!"
"Zanki!"

 

[TheIllusionist]

I have to ask, in your opinion, do you think medical school is a sham in terms of difficulty? I feel like a lot of my friends in undergrad, would never be able to keep the level of work effort required for a sustainable amount of time. What about being a doctor in general? Also, I like the idea of gaining a deep understanding of physiology. Do you think Kaplan is worth paying for if your school pays for RX aleady?

sham in terms of G needed to succeed to get good grades and scores. Not a sham in terms of shear dedication needed to sit there and robotically memorize. not sure about being a doc, since I don't have an MD yet, and I am still a medical student. No Kaplan is not necessary. That deeper understanding is a waste. Just memorize first aid tables and how u world applies them. that alone is perfectly sufficient. kaplan physio is more to fulfill curiosity and gain some cool insights, but it isn't a good use of your time.

RX is the best secondary qbank for memorizing, since it is just first aid in question form.

 

[jhenj529]

sham in terms of G needed to succeed to get good grades and scores. Not a sham in terms of shear dedication needed to sit there and robotically memorize. not sure about being a doc, since I don't have an MD yet, and I am still a medical student. No Kaplan is not necessary. That deeper understanding is a waste. Just memorize first aid tables and how u world applies them. that alone is perfectly sufficient. kaplan physio is more to fulfill curiosity and gain some cool insights, but it isn't a good use of your time.

RX is the best secondary qbank for memorizing, since it is just first aid in question form.

Damm, I thought I was reasonably intelligent. I wonder if that's what all my friends think of me in other engineering think of me. A dumb robot that memorizes