low board scores vs. fail then high score

[sunshine1160]

Hi,
I was wondering when it comes time to ranking applicants, does the applicant with a lower score on her first attempt get higher ranking or does the applicant with a fail and then a subsequent excellent, above average score after 1 failed attempt get ranked higher? Or do these things not even get taken into account due to the busy nature of the ranking committee and is the score the only thing written?

Thank you

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dral]

I think a program director would prefer to see a first time pass. He may not even consider ranking a failed attempt regardless of repeat passing score.

 

[Morzh]

I don't know the answer and it will vary PD to PD. But I know for a fact some programs require a pass on first attempt or they don't even interview you. So clearly the low passing score is going to be better for such programs.

 

[Raryn]

It probably varies from program to program, but I know some (including mine) simply filter out anyone with *any* failed step, regardless of their subsequent scores.

 

[gutonc]

I don't think it varies all that much. A low score is a yellow flag. A failed Step is a red flag.

 

[withoutface123]

Once the interview is snagged, though, Step scores tumble down the list of a program director's ranking priority, no? Stuff like how the interview went, rapport with the staff, etc, that all usually gets ranked pretty highly in surveys over final rank lists. So the obstacle would seem to me to snag that interview first.

 

[Law2Doc]

Once the interview is snagged, though, Step scores tumble down the list of a program director's ranking priority, no? Stuff like how the interview went, rapport with the staff, etc, that all usually gets ranked pretty highly in surveys over final rank lists. So the obstacle would seem to me to snag that interview first.

True, but it never looks good to fail things.

 

[the argus]

Once the interview is snagged, though, Step scores tumble down the list of a program director's ranking priority, no? Stuff like how the interview went, rapport with the staff, etc, that all usually gets ranked pretty highly in surveys over final rank lists. So the obstacle would seem to me to snag that interview first.

This is very specialty/program specific. In some smaller programs this might be the case, but many of the larger programs (think IM at a university with 30-40 spots each year) still rely heavily on pre-interview metrics when ranking applicants. Think about it, there's no way to rank 300-400 people based on interview day interactions, there are too many people involved in the process and interpersonal variability when grading interviews/rapport/etc.

Now this isn't to say that your interview can't affect your rank position (positively, or more commonly negatively I would assume) at these big programs, but I think pre-interview metrics play a larger role when compared to smaller programs with <10 people per class.