MCAT vs. Step 1: Step 1 = more "studyable," less reading comprehension?

[rocketbooster]

I know there are some very old threads on this but I wanted to hear from some ppl who have recently taken the Step 1. My test is coming up in June so I'm starting to prep for this beast.

I was just curious if you would more or less agree with this....from what I've heard/read, the Step 1 is nothing like the MCAT. Going into the MCAT, I thought it was mainly knowledge-based so the more content you studied the better you would do. After taking the real test, I realized the test was more like 2/3rds reading comprehension and 1/3rd content/knowledge-based with some critical thinking skills mixed in there. Yes you had to know the science content well, but if your reading comprehension was not excellent then you would not be getting a very high score. I tried comparing it back to the SAT and realized the SAT is mainly half reading comprehension and half critical thinking. So the MCAT was more "study-able" than the SAT but still very reading comprehension based.

For the Step 1, based on reading some practice questions, all my school tests which only have vignettes, and reading others' commentaries on the Step 1, this test definitely seems the most "study-able." I keep hearing it is a "thinker's test" and just memorizing things will enable you to pass but not score super high. Thinker's test = critical thinking which is much different than reading comprehension. So it sounds like this test is more like half content-based and half critical thinking. The critical thinking = understanding the mechanisms, processes, reasoning of the memorization that is required. A vignette only has a few sentences and one question associated with it. It's a much different format than passage-based tests (long passage + 7 questions over the passage) like the SAT and MCAT. Because of this difference, reading comprehension is less important on the Step 1. Being able to read fast and retain lots of what you just read in a long passage doesn't really help as much on this test. Most ppl can probably retain most of what they read in a few sentences and read fast enough that having to read a short paragraph will not cause them time problems overall.

So for those who have taken the Step 1, would you agree with this, part of this, or not at all? Why or why not?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Adam638]

The MCAT is a terrible predictor of medical school performance and is nothing like medical school exams. I don't care what all of the "studies" out there say.

 

[gravitywave]

MCAT - 25
Step 1 - 245
NBME Shelf Exams - >90% nationally on all; 98% on Peds, Psyc, and Surgery
Step 2 CK - 262
Step 2 CS - Pass


The MCAT is a terrible predictor of medical school performance and is nothing like medical school exams. I don't care what all of the "studies" out there say.

n = 1 with a massive chip on his shoulder.

nice scores, though.

 

[Bartelby]

I tend to agree. The MCAT focuses a lot on reading comprehension and thinking through what is presented in a passage. On Step 1 you need to work through a vignette in a timely manner but I think what matters most is your knowledge base. The more you know the better you should do.

So yes, my impression was that you can study for both but having a great knowledge base will help out more with Step 1 than it would with the MCAT (and if you don't know the answer on Step 1 don't expect to puzzle it together from a passage).

 

[Adam638]

Wasn't attempting to brag about my scores. Interpreted the OP's initial question as
"what is the relationship between studying for SAT, MCAT, and Step 1". My point was that they are such different tests, there is no correlation. I could care less about the praise of my fellow anonymous SDN members.

WIldcatS11 and gravitywave: rather than commenting on another member's response, why don't you answer the question since you seem to have a more thorough understanding?

 

[bamtuba]

n = 1 with a massive chip on his shoulder.

nice scores, though.

Yeah, random, but I know several "n=1" examples at my school alone (which is about 10% of a class) where people had MCAT around 29-31 and STEP 1 of 250+

statistics breaks down at the individual level anyhow so just work as hard as you can and you'll do as well as you can.

OP: taking some practice questions from somewhere like USMLEworld will give you your answer. Some people just look at the same questions in different ways, but I've thought of the questions as more 2-4th order knowledge based with (at least attempted) clinical application. Call it what you want.

 

[gravitywave]

Wasn't attempting to brag about my scores. Interpreted the OP's initial question as
"what is the relationship between studying for SAT, MCAT, and Step 1". My point was that they are such different tests, there is no correlation. I could care less about the praise of my fellow anonymous SDN members.

Your point has been considered, and rejected as being a classic example of "n=1" logic: you are attempting to extrapolate your personal experience as an outlier to the validity of the MCAT:Step I relationship generally. Which is silly. Multiple peer-reviewed studies stand in direct contradiction to your opinion. Your MCAT = 50th percentile, your Step = 83rd or so... again, great job, but that's just you. The only reason I could come up with for your apparent lapse in judgment is that you've got an axe to grind.

WIldcatS11 and gravitywave: rather than commenting on another member's response, why don't you answer the question since you seem to have a more thorough understanding?

The MCAT is a critical thinking test. So is the Step. People who are good at critical thinking as it applies to standardized tests tend to do well on both. Major difference is that the Step requires a level of background knowledge an order of magnitude larger than the MCAT, very roughly speaking. Many people who are otherwise good at critical thinking exams fall down on the Step because the background knowledge requirement exceeds their threshold for either retention of detail or willpower to study, whereas they were nowhere near that threshold for the MCAT.

 

[gravitywave]

Yeah, random, but I know several "n=1" examples at my school alone (which is about 10% of a class) where people had MCAT around 29-31 and STEP 1 of 250+

statistics breaks down at the individual level anyhow so just work as hard as you can and you'll do as well as you can.

OP: taking some practice questions from somewhere like USMLEworld will give you your answer. Some people just look at the same questions in different ways, but I've thought of the questions as more 2-4th order knowledge based with (at least attempted) clinical application. Call it what you want.

sniff around and you'd also find another 10% who scored mid-30s on the MCAT and gagged up a 210. It happens, but those cases are much more difficult to find out about, for obvious reasons.

 

[cincincyreds]

Interesting thread, even though I took these exams a while ago. I got a 33 MCAT, step 1 low 190s. I really did study hard for step 1, not the best memorizer in the world. About 220 on step 2. I did pass every class and rotation in medical school without any issues, some high honors and honors along the way.

I guess everyone has a bad day. So all in all, I don't think MCAT is correlated to step 1 and that those scores don't necessarily make you a bad or good doctor.

But, they adcoms need something to go by.

 

[islandCrazy]

Personally I know that I did not do so hot on the MCAT so I have been going crazy in terms of my step 1 studying compared to my classmates. I bet the fear of doing poorly again is what messes up the correlation.

 

[Valadi]

I know there are some very old threads on this but I wanted to hear from some ppl who have recently taken the Step 1. My test is coming up in June so I'm starting to prep for this beast.

I was just curious if you would more or less agree with this....from what I've heard/read, the Step 1 is nothing like the MCAT. Going into the MCAT, I thought it was mainly knowledge-based so the more content you studied the better you would do. After taking the real test, I realized the test was more like 2/3rds reading comprehension and 1/3rd content/knowledge-based with some critical thinking skills mixed in there. Yes you had to know the science content well, but if your reading comprehension was not excellent then you would not be getting a very high score. I tried comparing it back to the SAT and realized the SAT is mainly half reading comprehension and half critical thinking. So the MCAT was more "study-able" than the SAT but still very reading comprehension based.

For the Step 1, based on reading some practice questions, all my school tests which only have vignettes, and reading others' commentaries on the Step 1, this test definitely seems the most "study-able." I keep hearing it is a "thinker's test" and just memorizing things will enable you to pass but not score super high. Thinker's test = critical thinking which is much different than reading comprehension. So it sounds like this test is more like half content-based and half critical thinking. The critical thinking = understanding the mechanisms, processes, reasoning of the memorization that is required. A vignette only has a few sentences and one question associated with it. It's a much different format than passage-based tests (long passage + 7 questions over the passage) like the SAT and MCAT. Because of this difference, reading comprehension is less important on the Step 1. Being able to read fast and retain lots of what you just read in a long passage doesn't really help as much on this test. Most ppl can probably retain most of what they read in a few sentences and read fast enough that having to read a short paragraph will not cause them time problems overall.

So for those who have taken the Step 1, would you agree with this, part of this, or not at all? Why or why not?

The way they are designed the MCAT is an aptitude test and the Steps are an achievement test. While critical thinking and content knowledge are involved in both, "reading comprehension" is more in the realm of aptitude than achievement. So yeah, I agree. They're different tests. Meant to test different things.

 

[JackShephard MD]

Even if there is a good correlation to the MCAT and Step I doesn't lead to the conclusion that the tests require the same skills. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

It's very possible that a person who didn't perform well on the MCAT didn't really prep very well and consequently didn't prep well on Step 1. This would lead to the same correlation seen in those studies. Likewise, people who plan well, execute well, and prep well will end up doing well on Step 1 and the MCAT. Until someone looks at all the peripheral factors that are involved in preparation then I think it would be hard to say that the tests require the same skill sets. We only know that people tend to perform the same, not why.

I don't think you can discredit Adam's n=1 example on the basis of being an n = 1. Think about it, everything we've every discovered was n = 1 at one point in time.

If they really wanted to design the studies well, you would need to look at factors like: hours spent in prep, prep material used, practice tests taken, etc.

This may be why these n=1 scenarios like Adams can pop up from time to time. Maybe it is a completely different exam and the minority that decides to change and prepare better can, and consequently do.

 

[WeAreNotRobots]

Maybe all you "n=1"s work extra hard on step 1 to buck the trend because you know the evidence is stacked against you.

But seriously, let's remember the limits of data interpretation...

 

[Adam638]

n = 1 with a massive chip on his shoulder.

nice scores, though.

Maybe I do have a bit of chip on my shoulder. As someone who has served on our medical schools admission committee, I've seen many qualified applicants with average MCAT scores get passed over based on that score alone, while other socially inept candidates are given an interview because they could interpret the tone of the author of an article on the Great Depression or the structure of a organic chemistry reaction better. I've seen the randomized, statistically significant studies that show the correlation between the MCAT and Step 1. I still believe it is a poor predictor of medical school performance. It's just my opinion. You're entitiled to an opinion and I'll keep mine.

 

[gravitywave]

Even if there is a good correlation to the MCAT and Step I doesn't lead to the conclusion that the tests require the same skills. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

It's very possible that a person who didn't perform well on the MCAT didn't really prep very well and consequently didn't prep well on Step 1. This would lead to the same correlation seen in those studies. Likewise, people who plan well, execute well, and prep well will end up doing well on Step 1 and the MCAT. Until someone looks at all the peripheral factors that are involved in preparation then I think it would be hard to say that the tests require the same skill sets. We only know that people tend to perform the same, not why.

I don't think you can discredit Adam's n=1 example on the basis of being an n = 1. Think about it, everything we've every discovered was n = 1 at one point in time.

If they really wanted to design the studies well, you would need to look at factors like: hours spent in prep, prep material used, practice tests taken, etc.

This may be why these n=1 scenarios like Adams can pop up from time to time. Maybe it is a completely different exam and the minority that decides to change and prepare better can, and consequently do.

errr... so you say the conclusion that they both require the same skills doesn't follow, and then you.... back that up with an example in which success in both was dependent upon the same skills (viz effective prep)?

again, I'm psyched for folks like Adam638 who bucked the trend, although we all know many more stories like his than we do of the opposite result. Selection bias for sure. And the data show that the correlation is weak-moderate, so there are plenty of n=1s out there. But I think it's disingenuous to say that the people who tested poorly on the MCAT despite a good effort don't have a bigger hill to climb. To say that the MCAT is a "terrible predictor" just makes a person look irrational.

People who can score well on tests, can score well on tests. I believe that cuts across the board. Of course the two tests are different, and I think Valadi's remarks about aptitude vs. achievement are spot on. The MCAT seeks to put people on a curve; the Step is a normative exam designed to show evidence of minimal competence.

 

[gravitywave]

Maybe I do have a bit of chip on my shoulder. As someone who has served on our medical schools admission committee, I've seen many qualified applicants with average MCAT scores get passed over based on that score alone, while other socially inept candidates are given an interview because they could interpret the tone of the author of an article on the Great Depression or the structure of a organic chemistry reaction better. I've seen the randomized, statistically significant studies that show the correlation between the MCAT and Step 1. I still believe it is a poor predictor of medical school performance. It's just my opinion. You're entitiled to an opinion and I'll keep mine.

honestly, i agree with your attitude here. The test score arms race isn't good for anyone. I think i read that the probability of passing the Step doesn't change appreciably past MCAT score of 28 or 30.

At least the MCAT is designed to be somewhat reliable across the entire curve, and it's being used in a manner that somewhat approximates its intent. Ten point differences on the Step becomes vital to one's career in some cases, particularly it seems in cases where the score is quite far from what the exam is supposed to show (that whatever side of 188 you end up on is the side you are supposed to be on)

 

[Guillemot]

MCAT is the best predictor of medical school success, not because it is good, but because everything else is worse.

 

[Butler]

MCAT is the best predictor of medical school success, not because it is good, but because everything else is worse.

This. Sad, but true. Maybe when they change the MCAT, it will become a better predictor...maybe lol. Numbers are easy to quantify and compare, which is why MCAT score and Step 1 are such a large part of an individuals application to Med school or residency, respectively. Much harder to quantify someone's personal statement, essays, LORs (pretty much say a lot of the same most of the time) and GPA (especially with all the grade inflation nowadays). Not that I agree with all that, but the Adcoms need some way to sort through thousands of apps, even if its mostly arbitrary comparison and luck of the draw anyways .

 

[cliquesh]

I think only 10% of the questions on my Step 1 were critical thinking (You weren't expected to know the answer from past knowledge). The other 90% of the answers could be found in first aid.

 

[2012mdc]

I agree with your assessment.

Step 1 is a much more studyable test IMO.

I personally think doing well on Step 1 requires 2 major steps. First is establishing the knowledge base. Second is mastering the question style and knowing how to attack the test. I think that the 2nd step is often overlooked and really hurts some people. Because they have to make the test "fair" and a committee approves every question the question style is very formulaic.

 

[JackShephard MD]

errr... so you say the conclusion that they both require the same skills doesn't follow, and then you.... back that up with an example in which success in both was dependent upon the same skills (viz effective prep)?

again, I'm psyched for folks like Adam638 who bucked the trend, although we all know many more stories like his than we do of the opposite result. Selection bias for sure. And the data show that the correlation is weak-moderate, so there are plenty of n=1s out there. But I think it's disingenuous to say that the people who tested poorly on the MCAT despite a good effort don't have a bigger hill to climb. To say that the MCAT is a "terrible predictor" just makes a person look irrational.

People who can score well on tests, can score well on tests. I believe that cuts across the board. Of course the two tests are different, and I think Valadi's remarks about aptitude vs. achievement are spot on. The MCAT seeks to put people on a curve; the Step is a normative exam designed to show evidence of minimal competence.

I agree with you. Saying the MCAT is a terrible predictor isn't fair, it may actually be the best predictor available (although moderate). The aptitude vs achievement is a great point, which I didn't say as succinctly. They test different abilities but individuals tend to perform at a similar level on each exam.

I agree with your assessment.

Step 1 is a much more studyable test IMO.

I personally think doing well on Step 1 requires 2 major steps. First is establishing the knowledge base. Second is mastering the question style and knowing how to attack the test. I think that the 2nd step is often overlooked and really hurts some people. Because they have to make the test "fair" and a committee approves every question the question style is very formulaic.

👍 Good point.

 

[justaverage]

Step 1 I felt like tested my overall science and medical knowledge, the MCAT was more about how you can read and interpret data quickly. Also Step 1 has a lot of predictable questions and once you get the format down it is very easy. That goes for the rest of the NBME shelf exams as well (at least IMO).

 

[Valadi]

errr... so you say the conclusion that they both require the same skills doesn't follow, and then you.... back that up with an example in which success in both was dependent upon the same skills (viz effective prep)?
....Of course the two tests are different, and I think Valadi's remarks about aptitude vs. achievement are spot on. The MCAT seeks to put people on a curve; the Step is a normative exam designed to show evidence of minimal competence.

Gracias. The MCAT sucks, but it's still the best predictor they have and does significantly predict scores (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12377692). Although the effect is only moderate (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17198300) leaving plenty of wiggle room for people to jump.... or drop...

Wish people would just realize they're purposely different tests and move on from this discussion which creeps up on SDN every couple of months. It's like comparing getting kicked in the nuts or willfully putting them in a vice. One is arguably more pleasant. But really, how pleasant could either be?

 

[BestDoctorEver]

Happy to find this thread. I was scared to death thinking I was gonna to have trouble passing step 1 (COMLEX/USMLE) even though a physician told me that step 1 is easier because it is almost 100% memorization as opposed to the MCAT, which is over 70% 'mental gymnastic'...

For reference: I got 9PS/6VR/9BS in my MCAT.

 

[mulberry]

Your point has been considered, and rejected as being a classic example of "n=1" logic: you are attempting to extrapolate your personal experience as an outlier to the validity of the MCAT:Step I relationship generally. Which is silly. Multiple peer-reviewed studies stand in direct contradiction to your opinion. Your MCAT = 50th percentile, your Step = 83rd or so... again, great job, but that's just you. The only reason I could come up with for your apparent lapse in judgment is that you've got an axe to grind

You sure about that? http://internationalgme.org/Resources/Pubs/Donnon et al (2007) Acad Med.pdf

Just to pull some of the important numbers there is 44% variance accounted for in Step 1 scores based on MCAT with a higher than normal p value for 95% CI. MCAT variance only accounted for 19% of Step 2 scores and was neglible for Step 3. So to answer the question NO MCAT does not have a significant effect on board scores especially steps 2 and 3

 

[mulberry]

double post

 

[chizledfrmstone]

You sure about that? http://internationalgme.org/Resources/Pubs/Donnon et al (2007) Acad Med.pdf

Just to pull some of the important numbers there is 44% variance accounted for in Step 1 scores based on MCAT with a higher than normal p value for 95% CI. MCAT variance only accounted for 19% of Step 2 scores and was neglible for Step 3. So to answer the question NO MCAT does not have a significant effect on board scores especially steps 2 and 3

I'm sure he would have cared 2 years ago, when he originally made that comment.

 

[Kahreek]

bottom line, you need what you had for mcat plus a ton **** more of studying, to get all that knowledge down.

 

[DermViser]

Happy to find this thread. I was scared to death thinking I was gonna to have trouble passing step 1 (COMLEX/USMLE) even though a physician told me that step 1 is easier because it is almost 100% memorization as opposed to the MCAT, which is over 70% 'mental gymnastic'...

For reference: I got 9PS/6VR/9BS in my MCAT.

If you want to pass the USMLE Step 1, then memorization with brute force will work fine. If you want to do well (depending on how you define that), then memorization alone will be nowhere close to enough.

 

[BestDoctorEver]

If you want to pass the USMLE Step 1, then memorization with brute force will work fine. If you want to do well (depending on how you define that), then memorization alone will be nowhere close to enough.

I will be shooting for 225+ in Step 1 since I am only interested in FM and psych....