Just got served a slice of humble pie

[yehhhboiii]

---

Members don't see this ad.

ITT is an OP who is mad a girl who he thought was dumb is doing as well, if not better than he is.
Here's some sound advice for you OP: Stop comparing yourself to your classmates. Focus on doing as well as YOU can and you'll be happier. Most people who habitually compare themselves to others in any aspect of life are generally insecure about themselves.

yup
"we got on the subject of grades"
translation: i asked her what her grades were so i can feel smug with my superior classroom performance. then i got dominated so i went to sdn for moral support while pretending to have made a deep insight and learned a valuable life lesson

 

[Jemeni]

yup
"we got on the subject of grades"
translation: i asked her what her grades were so i can feel smug with my superior classroom performance. then i got dominated so i went to sdn for moral support while pretending to have made a deep insight and learned a valuable life lesson

That's actually not what happened at all. She voluntarily brought her specific scores up.

But hey, I'm sure you know best!

 

[redpanda]

And this is why if someone you don't absolutely trust asks you about your grades, you hedge and/or get off the topic or out of the conversation ASAP.

As other posters have mentioned, getting nice grades in medical school is some combination of intelligence and diligent work. That being said, part of being intelligent is to realize that most Step 1 knowledge is not what is going to make you a great clinical clerk and doctor in the end, so it's not a great idea to sacrifice learning all the "non-high-yield" material just because it won't be on the exam in 6 months. In clerkships, it seems like there isn't an evaluation that doesn't say "so-and-so should read more/keep reading" regardless of whether there is a H/HP/P/LP in the end.

 

[yehhhboiii]

That's actually not what happened at all. She voluntarily brought her specific scores up.

But hey, I'm sure you know best!

my mistake
i guess that makes you not whiny and insecure anymore

 

[Apoplexy__]

On the subject of contributory input to the thread...

Upon thinking more about it, I guess it came down to the fact that I sacrificed studying lecture minutiae for nailing down high yield concepts in Pathoma and First Aid, that will hopefully show returns in the form of higher board scores. In exchange, my test grades suffer. But does anybody else feel disgruntled like I do? Maybe this is something I shouldn't give too much thought to. But it really just hit me that you don't have to be that smart to be a doctor. It really just takes hard work.

OP, I feel your pain here. Rather than saying success is all smarts or all hard work, I think we can all agree that smarts aren't the rate-limiting step anymore in med school. Instead, hard work and efficient studying of the correct materials is most important. And it sucks when HY board-relevant materials aren't the correct ones for your school tests, because of stupid minutia.

So the fix that has worked for me: For the entirety of a test period up to the last week, study all the high yield stuff you want to really master key points and hammer down important info. Then, starting 7 days before, blow through everything being tested on once more, reinforcing what you learned but most importantly looking for testable minutia. Make a word doc or something purely composed of this minutia, then brute force cram it on the last day. There, you can be Step 1-sighted while not missing out on questions because some test-writer thinks you need to know that phenolphthalein is methyl-herpderpylated on the carbamoyl group by UDP-glucoronylmethemoglobinoxocoagulase.

 

[cbrons]

I was referring to physical science.

If I remember correctly, it definitely required a fair amount of critical thinking.

Memorization wouldn't have gotten you far on that section.

I respectfully disagree. Good old fashioned hard studying and (especially) just doing a lot of practice passages could help sail you through. IMO things that primarily test logic and reasoning arent things you can study for*, you either have it or you dont.

*to clarify, you can get better at critical analysis and argumentation, but that requires a focused study in logic and rhetoric combined with literacy/vocab.

 

[cbrons]

There, you can be Step 1-sighted while not missing out on questions because some test-writer thinks you need to know that phenolphthalein is methyl-herpderpylated on the carbamoyl group by UDP-glucoronylmethemoglobinoxocoagulase.

Hahaha

 

[happygilmore]

Just get into the field you want. The rest of med school is a bunch of BS.

 

[3838]

I'm all for a no-pressure environment in small-group. We're here to learn, and I always respect what others have to say. It should go without saying that I respect all of my peers and am constantly humbled by how much more there is to learn. However, I get my impression of them from more interactions with them than just small group sessions. You have a point though - you can not judge how intelligent someone is by what they say out loud. It's the result that matters. Only the result, nothing else.

My main point is that how well they're doing doesn't necessarily translate to intelligence. It's just how much you work. If you're smart or work smartly, you don't have to work as hard. But that doesn't apply to most of us.

Have you considered that maybe she's not great at verbal expression of her intelligence? There are different types of intelligence and maybe she can't express verbally a deep understanding of the material (that's why she seems ditzy), but she nevertheless has a deep understanding? Not everyone is great at teaching or relaying what they understand. Some of the most brilliant minds in the world are worthless at explaining concepts that they grasp at a level we can't even begin to fathom. Intelligence is very personal.

 

[Jemeni]

On the subject of contributory input to the thread...



OP, I feel your pain here. Rather than saying success is all smarts or all hard work, I think we can all agree that smarts aren't the rate-limiting step anymore in med school. Instead, hard work and efficient studying of the correct materials is most important. And it sucks when HY board-relevant materials aren't the correct ones for your school tests, because of stupid minutia.

So the fix that has worked for me: For the entirety of a test period up to the last week, study all the high yield stuff you want to really master key points and hammer down important info. Then, starting 7 days before, blow through everything being tested on once more, reinforcing what you learned but most importantly looking for testable minutia. Make a word doc or something purely composed of this minutia, then brute force cram it on the last day. There, you can be Step 1-sighted while not missing out on questions because some test-writer thinks you need to know that phenolphthalein is methyl-herpderpylated on the carbamoyl group by UDP-glucoronylmethemoglobinoxocoagulase.

Haha. Completely agree here, and I thought this much obvious to most med students. And thanks for the advice haha. I'm definitely focusing on the details more this time around. We'll see how that works out.

Have you considered that maybe she's not great at verbal expression of her intelligence? There are different types of intelligence and maybe she can't express verbally a deep understanding of the material (that's why she seems ditzy), but she nevertheless has a deep understanding? Not everyone is great at teaching or relaying what they understand. Some of the most brilliant minds in the world are worthless at explaining concepts that they grasp at a level we can't even begin to fathom. Intelligence is very personal.

This could be true also. Who knows? I guess the better question is who cares? I'll be much better off only worrying about myself.

 

[Anastomoses]

Just get into the field you want. The rest of med school is a bunch of BS.

this one has his eye on the ball.

 

[mcloaf]

I'd take the doc who aced Steps over the one with good blood drawing skills.

 

[Etorphine]

.

 

[Renaissance Man]

I don't understand where the idea of getting good grades on pre-clinical grades means mindless memorization of "useless" minutia. Sure there is a certain amount of jumping through hoops required, but in general our exams require applying knowledge. In second year especially, there are very few first order questions being asked.

 

[VisionaryTics]

I've heard this saying repeated many times, but what happens when that person actually starts outperforming others on wards?

That never happens. All people who did well on Step 1 are social *****s with no reasoning skills. They just regurgitate. They do not understand concepts. Their motor skills are atrocious. Also, motor skills are not practiced and honed, they are a god given gift.

muh concepts

 

[NickNaylor]

I don't understand where the idea of getting good grades on pre-clinical grades means mindless memorization of "useless" minutia. Sure there is a certain amount of jumping through hoops required, but in general our exams require applying knowledge. In second year especially, there are very few first order questions being asked.

Eh, I'd agree that it requires both, but I don't really think that step 1 requires much "reasoning" per se - perhaps more linking together a bunch of disparate material and being able to recognize when to apply specific sets of knowledge to potentially "new" situations. I didn't think there was much strictly theoretical or abstract type of application, though there was some. The key to most of the "application" questions usually rested on knowing enough detail about whatever was being discussed and recognizing similarities when compared to a new "theoretical" presentation. Those aren't obviously what I would consider to be "first-order questions," but they're still very fact-based, and the more facts you memorize, the better. Knowing those little things was still generally helpful on most of the abstract type questions.

 

[Renaissance Man]

Eh, I'd agree that it requires both, but I don't really think that step 1 requires much "reasoning" per se - perhaps more linking together a bunch of disparate material and being able to recognize when to apply specific sets of knowledge to potentially "new" situations. I didn't think there was much strictly theoretical or abstract type of application, though there was some. The key to most of the "application" questions usually rested on knowing enough detail about whatever was being discussed and recognizing similarities when compared to a new "theoretical" presentation. Those aren't obviously what I would consider to be "first-order questions," but they're still very fact-based, and the more facts you memorize, the better. Knowing those little things was still generally helpful on most of the abstract type questions.

Haven't been exposed to much Step 1 material yet, was just basing this on my school's curriculum and testing methods. I agree that memorizing is super important in medical school, but IMO the best grades also require a lot of applied knowledge.

 

[StoicJosher]

That never happens. All people who did well on Step 1 are social *****s with no reasoning skills. They just regurgitate. They do not understand concepts. Their motor skills are atrocious. Also, motor skills are not practiced and honed, they are a god given gift.

muh concepts

I am hoping this is sarcasm. I usually put people who say this along with people who say they are not book smart, just street smart.

 

[Southplains]

I am hoping this is sarcasm. I usually put people who say this along with people who say they are not book smart, just street smart.

Of course it's sarcasm. The people who go on to do well in clinicals graduate AOA and match well. No one was implying doing well in preclinicals and clinicals are mutually exclusive, just that there are some skills unique to each to do well.

 

[Jemeni]

Hrmmm.. some people are good at parrot memorizing books, I know many doctors that were apt to excel in med school from memorizing for exams but had average or poor clinical skills. You will see your real abilities start to come out in your 3rd year when you are actually standing in front of real patients and starting to do some minor procedures. You can be the wiz kid on the Steps without trying but that doesn't mean you didn't take 40 minutes to take an apparently easy arterial blood sample that shouldn't have taken you more than 2 minutes.

Well the thing is that nobody has exhibited any sort of clinical skills so far. That part remains up in the air. So while it could definitely be the case that they'll suck on the wards, it could just as well be the case that I or (neither of us) could too.

I don't understand where the idea of getting good grades on pre-clinical grades means mindless memorization of "useless" minutia. Sure there is a certain amount of jumping through hoops required, but in general our exams require applying knowledge. In second year especially, there are very few first order questions being asked.

This varies from school to school, methinks. I'm the one who's actually taken my school's exams. My classmates and I (including the very girl I spoke of in the OP) agree overwhelmingly that our tests are almost solely recall of extremely minute information, and are just in general poorly written exams that are poor predictors of actual mastery of the material presented. Guess how many biochem questions (out of about 250) we had that covered biochem in the biochem block? Hint: Less than 10. But we did have lots on Medicare (never taught) and neuropathies (was like 4 blocks ahead of that one lol). That's just poor test writing.

 

[as1212559]

ITT: A guy who can't deal with being average in med school

Strong cliffs/10

 

[Wordead]

This varies from school to school, methinks. I'm the one who's actually taken my school's exams. My classmates and I (including the very girl I spoke of in the OP) agree overwhelmingly that our tests are almost solely recall of extremely minute information, and are just in general poorly written exams that are poor predictors of actual mastery of the material presented. Guess how many biochem questions (out of about 250) we had that covered biochem in the biochem block? Hint: Less than 10. But we did have lots on Medicare (never taught) and neuropathies (was like 4 blocks ahead of that one lol). That's just poor test writing.

Uhhh, you're saying neuropathies and knowledge of the medical system are not high yield? And biochem somehow is?

I think the better explanation here is that you don't know what is high yield and what isn't.

 

[EMDO2018]

I was referring to physical science.

If I remember correctly, it definitely required a fair amount of critical thinking.

Memorization wouldn't have gotten you far on that section.

You people must have taken the MCAT awhile ago. I took it 2013 and every section requires a ridiculous amount of reasoning. The bio section use to be simple, now it gives people nightmares, convoluted questions with confusing answer choices. Passages with 3 and 4 graphs with obscure legends ughhh!

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

I've heard this saying repeated many times, but what happens when that person actually starts outperforming others on wards?

It's one of the most common excuses/cop-outs seen on SDN. And just like I said earlier in this thread, it's an ego defense for students who can't handle being average.

First and second year when they are getting average grades on their pre-clinicals it's "Oh, well I was studying the High Yield material for Step I since that's what really matters"

After Step I comes back and they still got beat by the same people it's "Oh, well just wait til third year when social skills and practical knowledge matter more"

Then when third year grades come back and those other people are getting AOA it's "AOA is SO political at my school it is ridiculous"

Then when match day rolls around it's "I really just never thought derm was that interesting"

The list goes on...

 

[mcloaf]

You people must have taken the MCAT awhile ago. I took it 2013 and every section requires a ridiculous amount of reasoning. The bio section use to be simple, now it gives people nightmares, convoluted questions with confusing answer choices. Passages with 3 and 4 graphs with obscure legends ughhh!

I took it 2012 and 90% of the whining about the bio section that happens on SDN is BS. If you have the basic abilities to interpret figures and tables you'll be fine. Newsflash: you have to understand tables and figures in medical school, too.

Also, your assumption that people who took the MCAT earlier can't understand what it's like no is more valid than your assumption than the MCAT in the past used to be much easier (unless of course you took it years ago and found it to be so).

Either way, none of this is germane to the thread.

 

[rigid]

gunners gon gun

 

[Lolscan]

Had an experience today that made me think... Perhaps I'm not the only one who feels this way.

The other day, I was talking to a girl in my class who I had regarded as relatively ditzy. We got on the subject of grades. I worked my ass off for the most recent round of tests. Like outworked many of my peers, even gaining a reputation as a "gunner". I scored right around the class average (on some tests; others higher). This girl annihilated me. She ended up scoring 90+ on everything. She does that consistently, apparently. My jaw almost dropped. I guess it was a lesson not to judge others at face-value. Still, she was one of those people that seemed to not really know that much when you talked to her in class, or in discussions of concepts. Yet somehow destroyed the exams. At first thought, I couldn't really understand it.

Perhaps this is just me getting disgruntled as a second year, but that experience touches on a common complaint I'm having lately. A lot of my classmates aren't really super "intelligent". They just read, and read, and read. When a topic comes up that they have read about, they literally regurgitate everything they've read without any critical thinking. They are completely devoid of logical parsimony in their approach, and it's almost astounding at times. They'll whiff spectacularly when it comes to even the simplest task that requires reasoning instead of recall.

Upon thinking more about it, I guess it came down to the fact that I sacrificed studying lecture minutiae for nailing down high yield concepts in Pathoma and First Aid, that will hopefully show returns in the form of higher board scores. In exchange, my test grades suffer. But does anybody else feel disgruntled like I do? Maybe this is something I shouldn't give too much thought to. But it really just hit me that you don't have to be that smart to be a doctor. It really just takes hard work.

Ok first of all, nobody knows her REAL score except what she tells people. Second regular exams aren't standardized. Third, the only thing that matters is the step 1.

I got 60s and 70s on all my exams first 2 year of med school because it was pass not pass and I just didn't give a ****. I scored 250+ on my step 1. Why? Because my self esteem is not based on a god damn test score. Perform when it matters and chill out on **** that don't matter.

 

[Lolscan]

I disagree. The verbal reasoning tests you critical thinking skills to an extent (more your reading speed and attention), but I dont believe the other sections do to any great extent.

No it doesn't. The verbal reasoning is there to make sure you can read. Thats it....It has nothing to do with what doctors do. People always say the verbal section is "what matters" because that is the section they did best on without studying.

Let me put it another way. If the verbal reasoning is the only section that measures critical reasoning then the smartest people in this world would be a bunch of ****en librarians.

 

[Slack3r]

Ok first of all, nobody knows her REAL score except what she tells people. Second regular exams aren't standardized. Third, the only thing that matters is the step 1.

I got 60s and 70s on all my exams first 2 year of med school because it was pass not pass and I just didn't give a ****. I scored 250+ on my step 1. Why? Because my self esteem is not based on a god damn test score. Perform when it matters and chill out on **** that don't matter.

You're likely an outlier. Our school admin has said (and they track this data) that most our high scorers on Step 1 were in the top 1/3rd of the class.

 

[boogaloo]

Ok first of all, nobody knows her REAL score except what she tells people. Second regular exams aren't standardized. Third, the only thing that matters is the step 1.

I got 60s and 70s on all my exams first 2 year of med school because it was pass not pass and I just didn't give a ****. I scored 250+ on my step 1. Why? Because my self esteem is not based on a god damn test score. Perform when it matters and chill out on **** that don't matter.

Congrats on the score. My classmates who scored 60s and 70s during the first two years all did well below average and a significant number of them failed. We did so badly as a class, our administration didn't bother to mention our class average (US MD school). All of my friends and the high scorers scored >240 though.

 

[VisionaryTics]

When we started biochem on day 1 of M1 year, our professor put up a graph. On the X axis were the biochem grades of the last few classes. On the Y axis were the Step 1 scores of those students. Despite this being the first class of med school and one that was only a small part of Step 1 material, the R value of the line was like 0.8. Sure, there were some outliers, but it was a pretty clear trend. Those who do well in classes tend to do well on Step 1, and those who do poorly in classes tend to do poorly.

 

[siliso]

It would be nice and fair if everything evened out in the end and people who are bad at tests were great at clinical skills, or people who were great at memorizing were bad at reasoning, but it's not true. To those who have much, more will be given. A better knowledge base means more material to reason with. Understanding concepts makes memorization easier and vice versa. Great test takers (who may be so because they are intellectually curious and good at both retaining information and applying it, not just because they're flashcard crammers) are often great clinically and socially as well. Not that only great test takers can reason and develop great clinical skills, at all. But it's not a handicap.

 

[cs24]

I don't understand where the idea of getting good grades on pre-clinical grades means mindless memorization of "useless" minutia. Sure there is a certain amount of jumping through hoops required, but in general our exams require applying knowledge. In second year especially, there are very few first order questions being asked.

Indeed. I'm just a first year, but our tests so far have contained a great deal of knowledge application questions. Do you need to memorize some things? Absolutely, but you are going into medicine, and the human body cannot just be conceptually understood at every level. Learning conceptually still helps a great deal, but you need to supplement with memorization of important facts. I just don't get how people think that "oh I'm a smarter student who's only focused on the big picture" aka Step 1 and "real clinical practice" when 1. so many schools have shown that preclinical grades are associated with Step 1 scores, and 2. these students are preclinical medical students with NO idea what it takes to be a successful doctor. How can you possibly know what material is most important at this stage? I think the best route is to actually eat a slice of humble pie, realize that you are just an upcoming student, and do your best to understand and learn the material presented to you even if it means you have to sacrifice some time to extra studying for memorization of some of those details that may seem unimportant now. If you want to supplement your studying with review resources, go ahead, but don't skip out on what you are being taught.

Finally, there really isn't that much info in a review resource compared to a preclinical course. I just looked through first aid section for Biochem (we have our final on Friday) and there's like 50 pages of material. Even if this is all the high yield great details, that seems like a tiny amount of information compared to the >2000 slides of class material we have. I don't care if you know FA cold, you are not going to ace a class exam covering all that other information if you don't study it as well, so why would you expect a different result and then come onto SDN complaining about it?

(on an unrelated note, our exams are NBME questions, but I bet that those who learn the in-class material well will still do better than those who just focus on the HIGH YIELD concepts, which will be an interesting data point in this whole conversation).

 

[mcloaf]

Indeed. I'm just a first year, but our tests so far have contained a great deal of knowledge application questions. Do you need to memorize some things? Absolutely, but you are going into medicine, and the human body cannot just be conceptually understood at every level. Learning conceptually still helps a great deal, but you need to supplement with memorization of important facts. I just don't get how people think that "oh I'm a smarter student who's only focused on the big picture" aka Step 1 and "real clinical practice" when 1. so many schools have shown that preclinical grades are associated with Step 1 scores, and 2. these students are preclinical medical students with NO idea what it takes to be a successful doctor. How can you possibly know what material is most important at this stage? I think the best route is to actually eat a slice of humble pie, realize that you are just an upcoming student, and do your best to understand and learn the material presented to you even if it means you have to sacrifice some time to extra studying for memorization of some of those details that may seem unimportant now. If you want to supplement your studying with review resources, go ahead, but don't skip out on what you are being taught.

Finally, there really isn't that much info in a review resource compared to a preclinical course. I just looked through first aid section for Biochem (we have our final on Friday) and there's like 50 pages of material. Even if this is all the high yield great details, that seems like a tiny amount of information compared to the >2000 slides of class material we have. I don't care if you know FA cold, you are not going to ace a class exam covering all that other information if you don't study it as well, so why would you expect a different result and then come onto SDN complaining about it?

(on an unrelated note, our exams are NBME questions, but I bet that those who learn the in-class material well will still do better than those who just focus on the HIGH YIELD concepts, which will be an interesting data point in this whole conversation).

😱

 

[cs24]

😱

Haha relax, trust me, I am not prepping for boards or anything. My girlfriend is an M2 thinking about starting to review some first year topics so she got the book and I skimmed through the Biochem section just to see what was in it. I certainly didn't study it.

 

[Etorphine]

.

 

[Brain Bucket]

Why is it such a surprise that people who do better in class also tend to do better on the boards? Dropping all other variables (minutiae, greater exposure, better view of the big picture, etc.), they're obviously working harder than everyone else, chances are this'll happen during board prep too.

 

[siliso]

Maybe it's just that the gal is smarter than you, even though she is performing some aspects of feminine identity (giggling, not flaunting knowledge that companions may not share aka "playing dumb") that mark her as "ditzy" to you. She might well also have a monster memory and a capacity to make connections and integrate and apply that you don't have. Not fair in the Harrison Bergeron sense, but it happens.

There are outliers and exceptions everywhere, but there's no reason to assume that you **** the bed on the shelves but will kick ass on step 1. Or that you stunk at step one but are going to be the man on the wards. Or that the gal who made junior AOA for her outlandish test taking skillz is going to be a clinical and social disaster. No. One thing leads to the other more often than not. People who cam discern what they need to know and apply it on course exams can do the same on board exams. People who aren't struggling to make the grade because they know they can do it fairly naturally have the knowledge base and the time to spend caring and connecting and then reasoning about what the patient needs - that makes great clinicians. The membership of AOA and the Gold Humanism Honor Society has a good 50-70% overlap.

 

[alpinism]

Why is it such a surprise that people who do better in class also tend to do better on the boards? Dropping all other variables (minutiae, greater exposure, better view of the big picture, etc.), they're obviously working harder than everyone else, chances are this'll happen during board prep too.

This. Getting an A in M1 biochem doesn't mean you should expect a 240 step 1.

The people getting great board scores are usually always studying harder and/or smarter. This is especially true during board prep when it really matters.

Lol and the vast majority of people scoring at the bottom of the class during exams aren't doing so b/c they're "focusing on step 1 instead of class material," its because they'e interested in noncompetitive specialties and are just trying to pass or they would rather spend their weekends hanging with friends or family instead of studying. Either way they're studying less or less efficiently (like being on FB or reddit half the time).

 

[Lolscan]

Maybe it's just that the gal is smarter than you, even though she is performing some aspects of feminine identity (giggling, not flaunting knowledge that companions may not share aka "playing dumb") that mark her as "ditzy" to you. She might well also have a monster memory and a capacity to make connections and integrate and apply that you don't have. Not fair in the Harrison Bergeron sense, but it happens.

There are outliers and exceptions everywhere, but there's no reason to assume that you **** the bed on the shelves but will kick ass on step 1. Or that you stunk at step one but are going to be the man on the wards. Or that the gal who made junior AOA for her outlandish test taking skillz is going to be a clinical and social disaster. No. One thing leads to the other more often than not. People who cam discern what they need to know and apply it on course exams can do the same on board exams. People who aren't struggling to make the grade because they know they can do it fairly naturally have the knowledge base and the time to spend caring and connecting and then reasoning about what the patient needs - that makes great clinicians. The membership of AOA and the Gold Humanism Honor Society has a good 50-70% overlap.

That is the biggest load of **** I have ever heard. The reason AOA and Gold Humanism have a huge overlap is because both of those "honor societies" look for the same nebulous qualities in medical students. People who can kiss ass will have the upper hand in both.

Clinical medicine has NOTHING to do with applying what you learned in class. Half of the hospitalists can't even agree on the same treatment plan for the same god damn thing. The second you switch attendings, the management plan changes. Why do you think there is only a 50% concordance rate among cardiologists for categorizing NYHA 2 versus NYHA 3 in patients? If clinicians can't even agree on medicine with guidelines and evidence, then what is the concordance rate of ranking nebulous qualities like "humanism" or "strong" or "compassion" in medical students. As a third year, your job is to kiss ass and keep your head low. It has nothing to do with medical knowledge.

Bottom line: You can read up on the latest clinical literature and you will still be wrong. Because clinical medicine is inherently subjective and everything you learned on these exams are not helpful. What it's about is selling yourself as a "confident, bright young doctor".