minimum step 1 score for top programs?

[pedro]

---

Members don't see this ad.

What is the minimum step 1 score you should have to feel descent about applying top programs (like MGH, BWH, JHU, UCSF, Stanford etc..)?
Thank you in advance!!

 

[yaah]

The only true minimum is passing. It sounds trite to say, but it's true on an individual basis. Applications are more than board scores. Now while your board score may be the thing that gets you an interview, the specific cutoff (if it exists) varies from program to program.

If you're counting on your board score to be the highlight of your application, then obviously it needs to be higher (240+). But if your other qualifications are stellar, then it won't matter.

 

[pathfme30]

I am somewhat joking, but somewhat not. Joking in that I am not going to hang myself if I am not stellar. However, have no idea what stellar is. What is stellar? It seems like most my classmates are smart, hard working, and have different talents. Of course most want ortho or derm, but we all do well and work hard. Would not stellar be lazy. Some of my classmates are real talented, but not science types. I am not being a jerk here either. I am just curious because it seems everyone has an opinion. I always imagine with some of the process it is about fit with the program and field for that matter.

The only true minimum is passing. It sounds trite to say, but it's true on an individual basis. Applications are more than board scores. Now while your board score may be the thing that gets you an interview, the specific cutoff (if it exists) varies from program to program.

If you're counting on your board score to be the highlight of your application, then obviously it needs to be higher (240+). But if your other qualifications are stellar, then it won't matter.

 

[yaah]

Yes, programs do have different definitions of what a great candidate is. So it does vary. Just use common sense to come to a definition of what "stellar" is. What would you think? There are obviously not uniform characteristics. Having a strong research/publication background is one. Having a good board score is one. Interviewing well is one. Having great LORs is one. Most people aren't great in all of these areas. Some are true standouts in one area or the other. Which is preferable, the solid candidate without any real weaknesses or the one who is a standout in one of those areas? I dunno. Does anyone?

Most people do not want ortho or derm. Most people want the field that appeals to them. A lot of times, you don't hear as much about the great candidates that go into less competitive fields.

Everyone does have an opinion and you would be best served to not try to figure out what the consensus opinion is, because there isn't one. Despite that, most people can pick out the good candidates (who fulfill the criteria listed above) and good candidates at one program will usually be good candidates at another program.

I have heard faculty talk about candidates they refer to as "great" candidates. There aren't uniform traits. Some refer to their really high board score. Some refer to their background and experience. Some refer to the half hour interview they had with them in which the candidate was really impressive. I hear good LORs from well known people mentioned a lot too.

Just be the best candidate you can be and that's the best choice. Don't try to compete with someone just because they have a higher board score or a PhD or whatever. You might be better suited for the program than they are.

 

[LADoc00]

I concur with "passing". I dont remember my board scores, never talked to other residents about them, and frankly Im certain even when I applied to Harvard they werent scruntized past the fact I passed. BUT thing might have changed since then.

 

[DarksideAllstar]

At least 250 on Step 1. A couple of places on the East Coast blackballed me and I was only a couple of points below that. They did, however, comment that my below-par score really rounded out their applicant pool and that my witty personal statement only underscored their decision not to interview me. Good luck and godspeed.

 

[CornellDerm]

i don't mean to discourage you from applying to the top programs, but I will give you my experience. I graduated in the top ten of my class from an American med school, was AOA, and had a 259 on step 1. I interviewed at all the places you mentioned and believe I could have gone to the place of my choice. Nonetheless, I really wanted to live in new york city so went to cornell (which is admittedly one tier down from the top places in all honesty). Still, I have been very satisfied with my training here and was able to get the dermpath fellowship of my choice....so no regrets.

i encourage you to apply wherever you want to go; there is much more to an applicant that his step 1 scores. anatomic pathology is indeed an art form. i've seen many people who aced the USMLE who just can't seem to conquer the art of histopathology. some are blessed with a good eye, some are not.

be true to thyself...above all.

good luck!

 

[CameronFrye]

some are blessed with a good eye, some are not.

Dr. Mills says this all the time and it definitely seems true for the most part. It's probably one of the most intimidating things about pathology. However, with enough repetition and study, I think most people can become at least adequate.

 

[deleted113029]

Dr. Mills says this all the time and it definitely seems true for the most part. It's probably one of the most intimidating things about pathology. However, with enough repetition and study, I think most people can become at least adequate.

I think a lot of this having a good eye stuff is a load. the key is having a good teacher who spends the time to tell you how to look at things. Once you have a template to follow, repetition seems to hone your skills.

(We all have pretty much the same eyes. last time i checked, when someone points to something on the scope, i am able to describe it the same way they would.)

Those who say people are blessed with eyes really mean "I'm so glad that i can play a couple more rounds of afternoon golf by not taking the time to teach them how to properly look at things." 🙄

 

[CameronFrye]

I think a lot of this having a good eye stuff is a load. the key is having a good teacher who spends the time to tell you how to look at things. Once you have a template to follow, repetition seems to hone your skills.

(We all have pretty much the same eyes. last time i checked, when someone points to something on the scope, i am able to describe it the same way they would.)

Those who say people are blessed with eyes really mean "I'm so glad that i can play a couple more rounds of afternoon golf by not taking the time to teach them how to properly look at things." 🙄

Of course repetition helps, but there are people who are just better than others. I can practice my golf swing all I want, but I will never be as good as many other people. The same holds for microscopy. I've seen an attending look at a consult slide for less than 10 seconds, give the dx, and then state "I've never seen this before, but it was described in a journal article from 1987". He then pulled one of the bound journals off his shelf and flipped right to the page.

As someone with a strong background in neuroscience, this idea of an "eye" is not surprising to me. Different brains process information differently. The autistics who can rattle off prime numbers aren't systematically counting quickly. They actually "see" the numbers.

If I remember correctly, you are a new resident. Wait until your 1st year is over. I guarantee you will know which attendings and residents are better than others.

 

[yaah]

It's true, you can watch senior residents and see this in action. Some will fly through cases and get everything (and more) that someone who spends 5 times as long and seems more thorough at first glance.

Obviously, good teachers help, but they can't do everything. A good teacher can't make you fast, and can't necessarily make you see subtle things. And description of morphology does not a diagnosis make. Our descriptions come from impressions, and if you think a case fits a certain diagnosis, you are going to describe it and formulate your thoughts partially based on bias. You will "see" certain things as key features of the diagnosis, and pass off other things that someone else would focus on as less important.