Official 2012 Step 1 Experiences and Scores Thread

[amavir281]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I saw that there was a similar thread for 2011 that had plenty of useful info so I figured its best to start one for 2012. 👍

 

[Aconitase]

Hey guys
I have a month and a couple of weeks to go for my exam and i keep getting scores of 67% to low 70s on random UWorld tests. In your experience what kind of a final score on the real thing does this correspond to? 230s? less? more?
Also what do you think is best to do to up my performance to the 80s. Is it worth it skimming thru Goljan quickly during this month to fish for bits of info that I don't have annotated in FA?

Thanks a lot for your advice

I am in the same boat. I would love to hear what people think.

 

[Kaputt]

I read his post. Thanks for linking us to that. I'm a bit scared/surprised, however, that he only got 261 after having gone through Rx, Kaplan and UWorld. Maybe he got a hard exam. On the other hand, I'm glad he says it how it is: give 7 months to prep. <-- That's a statement that would make quite a few people flip out, considering most SDNers come on here saying they gave 6 weeks prep, and that's "all you need," when in fact their MS2 was heavy preparation as well. The bottom line is that many months of hard work are needed to generate a strong outcome.

What..........? That's like saying "only got a 43 on the MCAT".

 

[Phloston]

Hey guys
I have a month and a couple of weeks to go for my exam and i keep getting scores of 67% to low 70s on random UWorld tests. In your experience what kind of a final score on the real thing does this correspond to? 230s? less? more?
Also what do you think is best to do to up my performance to the 80s. Is it worth it skimming thru Goljan quickly during this month to fish for bits of info that I don't have annotated in FA?

Thanks a lot for your advice

I am in the same boat. I would love to hear what people think.

It's difficult to say. It might help to look at the percentile they give you. I can't tell you what high-60s / low-70s equates to in UWorld, but you should figure that that will generally translate over onto the real thing. From what I've read this year among posts, however, low-70s is usually the low-240-range. Keep in mind though, people do UWorld at different times along their prep and in different study modes. If you want a more reliable/valid prediction, do the NBME exams.

I would ignore Golan altogether during the final month. If you want to get to the 80s, you need to do more questions, read the explanations, and just read FA.

What..........? That's like saying "only got a 43 on the MCAT".

Not really. A 270 is like breaking 40. A 261 is probably around the 94th percentile or so, which would likely be the 34-35 MCAT equivalent. The only reason the percentile-conversion is more impactful on the USMLE vs the MCAT is because the USMLE is essentially a test only taken by those who already broke 30, so the difficulty in achieving a 261 is shifted upward to probably around ~36-37, and a 270, ~42-43.

 

[TheNextLevel]

It's difficult to say. It might help to look at the percentile they give you. I can't tell you what high-60s / low-70s equates to in UWorld, but you should figure that that will generally translate over onto the real thing. From what I've read this year among posts, however, low-70s is usually the low-240-range. Keep in mind though, people do UWorld at different times along their prep and in different study modes. If you want a more reliable/valid prediction, do the NBME exams.

I would ignore Golan altogether during the final month. If you want to get to the 80s, you need to do more questions, read the explanations, and just read FA.




Not really. A 270 is like breaking 40. A 261 is probably around the 94th percentile or so, which would likely be the 34-35 MCAT equivalent. The only reason the percentile-conversion is more impactful on the USMLE vs the MCAT is because the USMLE is essentially a test only taken by those who already broke 30, so the difficulty in achieving a 261 is shifted upward to probably around ~36-37, and a 270, ~42-43.

As someone who recently took the exam after 4 weeks of dedicated studying in the context of a traditional US allopathic curriculum, I think I speak for many when I say I'm a little bit tired of coming on to this thread to see you piping off like the expert on the Step 1. Take a look at your BRS Behavioral Sciences and figure out which DSM-IV criteria you meet. If you want to spend 12 months studying for the exam, fine (although I personally think this is an act of insanity) but don't come on here and try to belittle the accomplishments of others who do it in 1/12th the time and not expect blowback. Just FYI: the title of this thread is USMLE Step 1 Score and Experiences.

 

[ijn]

....the USMLE is essentially a test only taken by those who already broke 30...

The average MCAT for a matriculating student in 2011 was 31. They all can't be above 30.

 

[Phloston]

As someone who recently took the exam after 4 weeks of dedicated studying in the context of a traditional US allopathic curriculum, I think I speak for many when I say I'm a little bit tired of coming on to this thread to see you piping off like the expert on the Step 1. Take a look at your BRS Behavioral Sciences and figure out which DSM-IV criteria you meet. If you want to spend 12 months studying for the exam, fine (although I personally think this is an act of insanity) but don't come on here and try to belittle the accomplishments of others who do it in 1/12th the time and not expect blowback. Just FYI: the title of this thread is USMLE Step 1 Score and Experiences.

I note that you say "belittle." Careful. When I said "only got 261," there was in no way the implication that that score was in any way not stellar; that comment is with respect to addressing the extent of prep in relation to its numerical translation. As you've said, this is a scores thread, so if you want to recommence the long-time debate of IMG vs AMG preparation-duration, you can continue your diatribe on a separate thread, because clearly you don't understand how the timelines differ. I would say, according to BRS, that you fit the description of projection quite well, which is an all-too-common defense mechanism here on SDN.

 

[Aconitase]

As someone who recently took the exam after 4 weeks of dedicated studying in the context of a traditional US allopathic curriculum, I think I speak for many when I say I'm a little bit tired of coming on to this thread to see you piping off like the expert on the Step 1. Take a look at your BRS Behavioral Sciences and figure out which DSM-IV criteria you meet. If you want to spend 12 months studying for the exam, fine (although I personally think this is an act of insanity) but don't come on here and try to belittle the accomplishments of others who do it in 1/12th the time and not expect blowback. Just FYI: the title of this thread is USMLE Step 1 Score and Experiences.

chill out, seriously. he helps a lot of us out here with our preparation for the exam. a lot of us msg him Qs and he is gracious and helpful 100% of the time. i think a person who can do that much wouldn't really have it in their nature to "belittle" others. grow up.

 

[MedicalStudent5]

Too much ego in this place.

As for experts, I think you need to take the exam and score well before you're an expert.

It's silly to get advice from someone who hasn't taken the exam.

Like getting med school advice from a pre-med.

 

[flodhi1]

Too much ego in this place.

As for experts, I think you need to take the exam and score well before you're an expert.

It's silly to get advice from someone who hasn't taken the exam.

Like getting med school advice from a pre-med.

Only on SDN lol

 

[RedSoxSuck]

Anyone to answer..please give your opinion on following
Pathoma vs Goljan
kaplan vs usmle rx

Pathoma hands down. Used rx a bit (30%). But all you need is: Pathoma, FA, and uworld. Perhaps goljan audio while driving or at the gym. However, i never used them at the gym.

 

[RedSoxSuck]

I am in the same boat. I would love to hear what people think.

I would not worry too much about the Percentage on uworld as long as you ARE LEARNING.

 

[MedicalStudent5]

Only on SDN lol

Also only on SDN:

people who haven't taken an exam are experts and advise others on how to prepare for it.

I think most medical students could score in the top 10% if they were given an entire year to prepare for the boards and they could actually bear doing 10,000 questions and 7 passes of First Aid.

It would be like playing as an NFL QB where the defense is moving at 1/10 speed. The challenge is in achieving the goal under immense pressure and time constraint. That's why there are lots of guys who can throw a pass, but not lots of guys who can play QB in the NFL.

 

[thehundredthone]

I think most medical students could score in the top 10% if they were given an entire year to prepare for the boards and they could actually bear doing 10,000 questions and 7 passes of First Aid.

After having studying at an American medical school, sure. It is after all the US-MLE, and is based on your MS1 and MS2 syllabus. For IMGs it's a whole different ballgame. While I don't know if a whole year of prep would be entirely productive, it does take time because we have to reorient our learning/thinking process and also have to learn new concepts that were not part of our syllabus (some aspects of biochem, such a big emphasis on molecular biology, etc. were definitely not in mine).

I'm not trying to start a fight here, I'm just trying to explain why IMGs need to prep more (and then some, given that the requirements for applying to the same fields are higher).

 

[MedicalStudent5]

After having studying at an American medical school, sure. It is after all the US-MLE, and is based on your MS1 and MS2 syllabus. For IMGs it's a whole different ballgame. While I don't know if a whole year of prep would be entirely productive, it does take time because we have to reorient our learning/thinking process and also have to learn new concepts that were not part of our syllabus (some aspects of biochem, such a big emphasis on molecular biology, etc. were definitely not in mine).

I'm not trying to start a fight here, I'm just trying to explain why IMGs need to prep more (and then some, given that the requirements for applying to the same fields are higher).

There is this giant misconception, IMGs believe that AMGs spent 2 years going over boards. I would say only half of the stuff I do is board related. Most is nit picky details (researchers presenting their stuff --> learned and forgotten) and clinical stuff.

I don't know who is saying that AMGs only prep boards for M1/M2. We have tons of clinical stuff weekly, sometimes daily.

 

[RedSoxSuck]

After having studying at an American medical school, sure. It is after all the US-MLE, and is based on your MS1 and MS2 syllabus. For IMGs it's a whole different ballgame. While I don't know if a whole year of prep would be entirely productive, it does take time because we have to reorient our learning/thinking process and also have to learn new concepts that were not part of our syllabus (some aspects of biochem, such a big emphasis on molecular biology, etc. were definitely not in mine).

I'm not trying to start a fight here, I'm just trying to explain why IMGs need to prep more (and then some, given that the requirements for applying to the same fields are higher).

Also, carribean (American IMG since carribean students rotate at u.s hospitals) criculum is so condensed that its not even funny. Most of the time, those students do not have enough time to learn/retain the material properly. That's another reason why they use more time to prepare for step 1.

 

[Work]

//

 

[thehundredthone]

There is this giant misconception, IMGs believe that AMGs spent 2 years going over boards. I would say only half of the stuff I do is board related. Most is nit picky details (researchers presenting their stuff --> learned and forgotten) and clinical stuff.

I don't know who is saying that AMGs only prep boards for M1/M2. We have tons of clinical stuff weekly, sometimes daily.

Well I did not say that you prepare for the MLE for the 2 years. I said that the MLE syllabus is based on your M1+M2 syllabus. It is not entirely alien to IMGs but there are topics, like behavioural sciences which are new. You also have standardised exams (I don't whether you have them before your MCAT too) and are acquainted with how they work. Another factor is that traditionally IMGs give the exam after they've finished medical school. Do you think you would do as well with a 6wk prep for the Step 1 after MS4?

Anyway, I'm an IMG who's going to give the exam with a 10wk prep break, and 1.5 months from now when I get my score, I'm sure I'll be glad I had those "extra weeks", even if I score 230,

The challenge is in achieving the goal under immense pressure and time constraint.

In American football, yes. If the NBME wanted to challenge us the same way they would make rules to do so. Not every IMG who takes a year to prepare is scoring 260, the curve is the same for them too. And this is beginning to sound like some religious pacifist monologue, "There is only one god/curve".

 

[MedicalStudent5]

Well I did not say that you prepare for the MLE for the 2 years. I said that the MLE syllabus is based on your M1+M2 syllabus. It is not entirely alien to IMGs but there are topics, like behavioural sciences which are new. You also have standardised exams (I don't whether you have them before your MCAT too) and are acquainted with how they work. Another factor is that traditionally IMGs give the exam after they've finished medical school. Do you think you would do as well with a 6wk prep for the Step 1 after MS4?

Anyway, I'm an IMG who's going to give the exam with a 10wk prep break, and 1.5 months from now when I get my score, I'm sure I'll be glad I had those "extra weeks", even if I score 230,


In American football, yes. If the NBME wanted to challenge us the same way they would make rules to do so. Not every IMG who takes a year to prepare is scoring 260, the curve is the same for them too. And this is beginning to sound like some religious pacifist monologue, "There is only one god/curve".

Do whatever you want, it's not important anyway, it's just a test. 20 years from now, no one is going to care at all about their step score. Maybe everything I said was wrong.

I do know one thing though, there is only one God.

 

[thehundredthone]

But depending on that score, 20yrs from now either they'll have an MD from the USA (and whatever follows) on their resume or they won't. That's what matters to the majority of IMGs, is all I'm saying. I'll leave it at that.

 

[loveoforganic2]

Also, carribean (American IMG since carribean students rotate at u.s hospitals) criculum is so condensed that its not even funny. Most of the time, those students do not have enough time to learn/retain the material properly. That's another reason why they use more time to prepare for step 1.

Don't they do 2 years of basic sciences?

 

[Phloston]

I can't speak on behalf of all IMGs, as there are various reasons why people require varying lengths of preparation, but from my personal standpoint, my school simply just didn't teach us a fraction of the content that we need to know for the exam, and it's likely that the same holds true for other international schools. My entire MS2 was essentially just reading Robbin's. There was nothing else I spent time doing. Whenever I'd ask upperclassman what to do, they'd just say, "read Robbin's, read Robbin's." Occasionally there'd be a "read Talley." And my entire MS1 was the equivalent of an undergrad physiology course with Australian ethics thrown into the mix. We weren't ever assessed on micro, biochem or pharm beyond the most cursory level. Gd knows why. In turn, it has taken considerable time not to just to learn the topics in FA, but to master them entirely (at the Step1 level). I think the other big factor is that not all IMGs initially plan on taking the USMLE. I had never thought about it until I was almost through my MS2. With AMGs, it's not that they necessarily are studying strict boards' material throughout MS1/2 as much as it is that their programs and mentality, from the very beginning, are ultimately geared toward having to take that exam, so they don't need to play catch-up.

------

Btw, it would be great to see some new scores/advice on this thread.

 

[RedSoxSuck]

Don't they do 2 years of basic sciences?

Well they do but it's different. St. George's ( Grenada) is the one that 2 semesters in a year with a summer break. So they finish their basic sciences in 2 years just like u.s schools. However, all other Caribbean schools finish first 2 years on medical schools in 16 months or a little less. This makes it really condensed with very little time to digest or STUDY FOR STEP 1 during those 16 months. This leads to not learning material properly because 16 months only allow for students to do the bare minimum and move forward. There are students who are still able to excel under these circumstances but a vast majority just PASS. So they end up taking quite a bit of time to go back and re learn material which they should have learned the first time but wasn't able to. And obviously professors are not up to par with u.s professors.

 

[Aconitase]

Well they do but it's different. St. George's ( Grenada) is the one that 2 semesters in a year with a summer break. So they finish their basic sciences in 2 years just like u.s schools. However, all other Caribbean schools finish first 2 years on medical schools in 16 months or a little less. This makes it really condensed with very little time to digest or STUDY FOR STEP 1 during those 16 months. This leads to not learning material properly because 16 months only allow for students to do the bare minimum and move forward. There are students who are still able to excel under these circumstances but a vast majority just PASS. So they end up taking quite a bit of time to go back and re learn material which they should have learned the first time but wasn't able to. And obviously professors are not up to par with u.s professors.

true statement. my experience exactly. 👍

 

[usmlefighter]

IMG's usually give step-1 and also other steps after Medical school. Obviously they forget boring basic sciences so they need to study them from the beginning to make sure they at least score decent score for getting Internal medicine,family medicine and pediatrics.

IMG's are also very conscious of scoring at least 230 above or above US mean score to make sure they are in race. They don't have Green card/US citizenship's etc so they don't want to take any risk.

Moreover IMG's medical schools focus more on just medical school marks . Most of the Professors don't guide and also students most of time ignore learning medical concepts and applying in clinical settings. For example in India medical school professors mostly guide students for their local PG exams which are not concept oriented but just regurgitating type. They also just read local author books for their exams except few people read Robbins and Harrison's

Above factors force them to take on average of 6 months for those giving step-1

NOTE: In my above description IMG's means mostly Asians, especially India,pakistan medical schools

Current Trend: Now a days IMG's/Asian students are more intelligent and whoever planning usmle and residency are giving step-1 after 2nd year of medical schools and they are utilizing 2years of medical schools to learn concepts just like AMG's.

NEET-PG by National Board of Examiners ( NBE). From 2013 onwards Medical council of India is going to implement NEET-PG exam which means all over the India there will be only SINGLE Medical entrance for Indian PG Residency unlike 28 entrances for 28 states. This move was inspired from USMLE -NBME. Other interesting thing is NEET-PG will be just like USMLE exams. Sop new change and good revolution, good for patient care

AMG's or Americans IMG's usually take maximum of 8weeks for step-1 preparation and present generation IMG's are following them.

Hope my analysis is correct and you understand my English. Sorry for irrelevant and long post.

Coming to Step-1 score of my friend who got 248 yesterday. As per his feedback,he got 50-60 Questions from Pure Gross Anatomy+Neuroanatomy and he said everything what we need to answer all those qs is to read HY Gross Anatomy & HY Neuroanatomy.

 

[tundri]

There is this giant misconception, IMGs believe that AMGs spent 2 years going over boards. I would say only half of the stuff I do is board related. Most is nit picky details (researchers presenting their stuff --> learned and forgotten) and clinical stuff.

I don't know who is saying that AMGs only prep boards for M1/M2. We have tons of clinical stuff weekly, sometimes daily.

C'mon guys. We know that the US med curriculum is geared toward the USMLE, the same way a teacher teaches mostly what he/she will put on a test. So yes, M1/M2 content is a lot of what you'll see again in "4-week DEDICATED study time".

It's a joke when many of you think you actually ONLY studied 4 weeks. Really ridiculous.

 

[Bagheera]

As an IMG, I feel a bit compelled to respond to this thread now. Heres my 2cents on this whole thing. First most American medical graduates prepare for USMLE on the side during the first 2 years as we have seen here in this thread from many posters. There are a few who start from scratch, but that does not seem to be the case. Also, as Phloston pointed out, AMG's know they have to take step 1 after 2nd yr to go to clerkship in many cases, whereas IMG's dont have this time constraint and pressure to have to take it after any school year, they can take it whenever they want. If, however, IMGs started their step 1 study during their first 2 years, then there should be no reason they need that much more time. Having finished the qbank, looked at some high yield review books, and first aid prior to a 4-8 week study peroid should be more than sufficient for a good score; my definition of good score is anything slightly above the average score by the way. If however one did not review during their 2 years, then of course it is going to take much more time to review for anyone whether its an IMG or AMG. But seeing some of the AMGs starting with low step scores before dedicated study peroid, like around 180-190, and then shooting up to 250 towards the end should prove that not all US medical schools cater towards board prep, because if it did, they would have a much higher board score starting out than 180-190, and it also shows that if one is very dedicated and motivated, he/she can make massive jumps in their score in a short amount of time. There are IMGs I know who took a year to study, and they still ended up failing. Not everyone that studies a year, does all qbanks, and reads this and that is going to get a 250+. If having much more time significantly increased ones score, I think most US med schools would demand more time for their students to prepare, but that is not the way this test is set up, and that's why many students are able to score very well with 4-8 weeks, whereas many IMGs spend up to a year and end up failing. I would say lack of english skills and lack of good reasoning is the reason why this occurs to IMGs.

I took my exam several weeks ago and waiting on my score still. I am not a stellar student and am expecting a slightly above average score.

I can say that while many here posted that First aid pharma is enough, that was not the case for every question on my exam. I knew first aid very well and focused on it. There were 3 drug questions, of which included the drugs in first aid, but asked sideffects, specific uses of the drugs, ect of these drugs that were not listed in first aid. This is just 3 questions however.

Most of everything is from UWORLD, first aid, and pathoma. There were some clinical questions that I just was not familar with as step1 material does not go over that stuff. Perhaps 3-5 questions on that stuff. To cover all bases for that, I could have probably looked up every disease in first aid and put the treatment, diagnostic procedures, ect in first aid, as it is lacking this info. But again this is was a miniority of questions, and as you can see is low yield to go and do that. One might spend all time memorizing low yield crap, and then forget some of the high yield stuff that is going to be asked for sure.

Anyways, for the most part, with the exception of the few screws up I had of putting the wrong answer down, most of the stuff I have seen before, and if I missed the question, it was because I wasnt understanding exactly what they wanted, I wasn't able to reason good and do proper process of elimiation, or they worded the question really weird testing a really common thing, and just confused me. Again this was rare but happened in a couple questions.

Many say to not look at first aid during the break, but there was a question I wasn't sure I was right on and second guessed myself, and I looked in first aid and ended up missing it. I learned the concept from that question, and then they asked a very very similar question, but now since I learned the concept, I didn't miss this next question and could answer it with 100% confidence. Not sure if i recommend this to anyone for just helping me with one question but I know many here are very anal for every question they can get. Toward the end however one is so tired and he/she is not going to want to look at first aid anymore atleast that was the case for me

Also, ill add according the NBME chart, anything above 265 and above is 99.81 percentile.

Goodluck everyone. After one takes the exam, he/she realizes this is about high yield, common diseases, just not ALL questions are presented in the way review books and first aid have it. Reasoning will get you to the correct answer in most cases.

 

[Phloston]

Coming to Step-1 score of my friend who got 248 yesterday. As per his feedback,he got 50-60 Questions from Pure Gross Anatomy+Neuroanatomy and he said everything what we need to answer all those qs is to read HY Gross Anatomy & HY Neuroanatomy.

That sounds like an absolute nightmare. Gd bless anyone with a strong anatomy background.

Also, ill add according the NBME chart, anything above 265 and above is 99.81 percentile.

Where did you encounter those numbers?

 

[Bagheera]

NBME table with percentiles


http://www.scribd.com/doc/52845176/NBME-USMLE-SCORE-TABLE

 

[Phloston]

NBME table with percentiles


http://www.scribd.com/doc/52845176/NBME-USMLE-SCORE-TABLE

Can anyone else please comment on likely validity of this?

Since when is 260 the 99th percentile? Unless the curve is genuinely positively shifted, that seems a bit lenient. Based on the numbers given in FA, if the curve is Gaussian, 97.5%tile should be 267, which would put the 99th closer to 270.

I also note that their 620 = 244. When I took NBME3, I got 620/250 on the actual NBME website. Somehow the numbers on that link are a bit off.

 

[exudate]

Can anyone else please comment on likely validity of this?

Since when is 260 the 99th percentile? Unless the curve is genuinely positively shifted, that seems a bit lenient. Based on the numbers given in FA, if the curve is Gaussian, 97.5%tile should be 267, which would put the 99th closer to 270.

I also note that their 620 = 244. When I took NBME3, I got 620/250 on the actual NBME website. Somehow the numbers on that link are a bit off.

That scale looks like it is an older version. The newer curve on the NBME website is different. https://nsas.nbme.org/nsasweb/doc/sample_CBSSAF.pdf

 

[thehundredthone]

NEET-PG by National Board of Examiners ( NBE). From 2013 onwards Medical council of India is going to implement NEET-PG exam which means all over the India there will be only SINGLE Medical entrance for Indian PG Residency unlike 28 entrances for 28 states. This move was inspired from USMLE -NBME. Other interesting thing is NEET-PG will be just like USMLE exams. Sop new change and good revolution, good for patient care

They are so inspired by the NBME that they lift questions directly and trim them down a little to make them 2-3 liners. Sometimes they don't even change names and locations. The only good thing about it is that it is common. It is nothing like the USMLE, and it will not help patient care in any way.

That sounds like an absolute nightmare. Gd bless anyone with a strong anatomy background.

I've been trying to read BRS Anatomy. There's no way all that stuff can be relevant for the exam, is there? From what I can gather though, there has quite a bit of anatomy on a few people's tests.

 

[usmlefighter]

They are so inspired by the NBME that they lift questions directly and trim them down a little to make them 2-3 liners. Sometimes they don't even change names and locations. The only good thing about it is that it is common. It is nothing like the USMLE, and it will not help patient care in any way.


I've been trying to read BRS Anatomy. There's no way all that stuff can be relevant for the exam, is there? From what I can gather though, there has quite a bit of anatomy on a few people's tests.

NBE cannot copy and paste NBME as they are copyright material. I think they got inspired by the way NBME conducts USMLE. Patient care is obviously related to Doctor who have good foundation. Now due to concept oriented NBE , medical students of new generation in India will sure focus more on NBE and in that way they can be forced to know concepts well and can be a good doctor

Believe or not many students from India or from other countries learn more while preparing for USMLE rather during medical school. Thanks to NBME & USMLE

Regarding Anatomy, i think HY Gross Anatomy is good than BRS

 

[Kaputt]

Can anyone else please comment on likely validity of this?

Since when is 260 the 99th percentile? Unless the curve is genuinely positively shifted, that seems a bit lenient. Based on the numbers given in FA, if the curve is Gaussian, 97.5%tile should be 267, which would put the 99th closer to 270.

I also note that their 620 = 244. When I took NBME3, I got 620/250 on the actual NBME website. Somehow the numbers on that link are a bit off.

It's not a normal distribution. There is so much misinformation out there about this, which is akin to all those people who touted around their "99s" like it was a percent correct or percentile.

There are no percentiles released. But we do know that there is a ridiculously low # of people who get >260 based on the various reports from the NBME and whatever. The only reason people like you think a 260 isn't special is because you hang out around here, where all those >260 kids congregate for a Step 1 circle-jerk. This forum is not the norm.

 

[smartparts]

It's not a normal distribution. There is so much misinformation out there about this, which is akin to all those people who touted around their "99s" like it was a percent correct or percentile.

There are no percentiles released. But we do know that there is a ridiculously low # of people who get >260 based on the various reports from the NBME and whatever. The only reason people like you think a 260 isn't special is because you hang out around here, where all those >260 kids congregate for a Step 1 circle-jerk. This forum is not the norm.

I have to agree with Phloston, I really dont think >260 is really that high a percentile. I have heard class averages >240 at at least 2 schools, which would mean a good chunk of students did >260. However, by chebyshev's inequality, two standard deviations above average can be no less than the 87.5th percentile.

 

[ijn]

SDN really warps your sense of reality. >260 is a very high percentile score.

Take a look at the NRMP data. Out of 26,880 students only 547 scored 261 or higher in 2011. So a 261 is a 97.9th percentile score relative to those students who were applying for residency in 2011.

 

[med8957]

As someone who recently took the exam after 4 weeks of dedicated studying in the context of a traditional US allopathic curriculum, I think I speak for many when I say I'm a little bit tired of coming on to this thread to see you piping off like the expert on the Step 1. Take a look at your BRS Behavioral Sciences and figure out which DSM-IV criteria you meet. If you want to spend 12 months studying for the exam, fine (although I personally think this is an act of insanity) but don't come on here and try to belittle the accomplishments of others who do it in 1/12th the time and not expect blowback. Just FYI: the title of this thread is USMLE Step 1 Score and Experiences.

^This is probably the best post on sdn.

IMG's scare me. Especially the ones who never took the mcat (or did take it and scored like an 18), the ones with 1.5 undergrad GPAs, and some that never even had an interview to their school. Many of you did not do the pre-med work beforehand, yet complain about your process of going the IMG route. That is not true for everyone though, but many fall in to one or more of those categories. Puzzling.
For everyone's information, american medical schools do not just teach out of First Aid at any point in time. There is a huge amount of detailed and extraneous( in terms of boards) material that is taught during MS1 and 2 at all american medical schools. FA is written as just an outline based off of basic medical knowledge that all future doctors should know-again this is BASIC, as in basic physio, endo, etc. If you need another year to learn and establish that simple base knowledge level, what were you doing during your 2 yrs on that effin island. You IMG's describe yourself as Engineers that complain you have to learn how to add and subtract before applying to Grad school. Again, makes no sense to me. Were they teaching you French, or some other subjects during your two years? Did you have to learn medicine in Swahili? Do you not realize american med students get 2x clinical experience during the first two years, again taking time away from basic science. I've even heard D.O. students have it harder because they have extra omm lecture/lab in addition to clinical things every single week, yet many of them destroy the usmle and their complex too with just 4-6 wks of prep, YET they do not complain like you people.

 

[Aclamity]

I have to agree with Phloston, I really dont think >260 is really that high a percentile. I have heard class averages >240 at at least 2 schools, which would mean a good chunk of students did >260. However, by chebyshev's inequality, two standard deviations above average can be no less than the 87.5th percentile.

What? you've got to be kidding me. There's no way 260 can be a 93-94 %ile as you guys say. There are just too few people out there with 260+ to make this reasonable. It most definitely is NOT a Gaussian distribution either. The questions are curved BEFORE we all take the test, so it's not like they can manipulate our scores to form a normal distribution.

What are these schools with 240+ avgs? I'm sure there are some out there, but it's not the norm.

 

[Phloston]

That scale looks like it is an older version. The newer curve on the NBME website is different. https://nsas.nbme.org/nsasweb/doc/sample_CBSSAF.pdf

Same thing as on the NBME website. I like how they put 800/292 on there, as if that's even possible. I wonder if that means the cap isn't 300 (not that it even matters).

I've been trying to read BRS Anatomy. There's no way all that stuff can be relevant for the exam, is there? From what I can gather though, there has quite a bit of anatomy on a few people's tests.

I own BRS Anatomy, and it seems like one of those books that's good assistance if you're in MS1 and want to build foundation. I haven't looked through HY Anatomy, and I'm not so sure that I would at this point even if I had it in front of me, as there truly is so much variation that could show up on the real exam. What I can say upfront is that my anatomy background is terrible (i.e. never took it in undergrad and my SoM has an embarrassingly poor course), and after ~12,000 practice questions so far, somehow my anatomy percentile in UWorld is currently 85. Therefore, with regard to the actual exam, the vast majority of HY points are probably gained just through practice questions alone; the reason people like me bug out about anatomy is because we realize that the only way to get those low-yield points is to have that incontrovertible anatomy background, and unfortunately that takes a long long time to build.

SDN really warps your sense of reality. >260 is a very high percentile score.

Take a look at the NRMP data. Out of 26,880 students only 547 scored 261 or higher in 2011. So a 261 is a 97.9th percentile score relative to those students who were applying for residency in 2011.

That seems so odd. Thanks for posting that though.

^This is probably the best post on sdn.

IMG's scare me. Especially the ones who never took the mcat (or did take it and scored like an 18), the ones with 1.5 undergrad GPAs, and some that never even had an interview to their school. Many of you did not do the pre-med work beforehand, yet complain about your process of going the IMG route. That is not true for everyone though, but many fall in to one or more of those categories. Puzzling.
For everyone's information, american medical schools do not just teach out of First Aid at any point in time. There is a huge amount of detailed and extraneous( in terms of boards) material that is taught during MS1 and 2 at all american medical schools. FA is written as just an outline based off of basic medical knowledge that all future doctors should know-again this is BASIC, as in basic physio, endo, etc. If you need another year to learn and establish that simple base knowledge level, what were you doing during your 2 yrs on that effin island. You IMG's describe yourself as Engineers that complain you have to learn how to add and subtract before applying to Grad school. Again, makes no sense to me. Were they teaching you French, or some other subjects during your two years? Did you have to learn medicine in Swahili? Do you not realize american med students get 2x clinical experience during the first two years, again taking time away from basic science. I've even heard D.O. students have it harder because they have extra omm lecture/lab in addition to clinical things every single week, yet many of them destroy the usmle and their complex too with just 4-6 wks of prep, YET they do not complain like you people.

Are you okay? Would you like some warm milk before bed?

What? you've got to be kidding me. There's no way 260 can be a 93-94 %ile as you guys say. There are just too few people out there with 260+ to make this reasonable. It most definitely is NOT a Gaussian distribution either. The questions are curved BEFORE we all take the test, so it's not like they can manipulate our scores to form a normal distribution.

What are these schools with 240+ avgs? I'm sure there are some out there, but it's not the norm.

HMS average in 2011 was 238.

 

[smartparts]

What? you've got to be kidding me. There's no way 260 can be a 93-94 %ile as you guys say. There are just too few people out there with 260+ to make this reasonable. It most definitely is NOT a Gaussian distribution either. The questions are curved BEFORE we all take the test, so it's not like they can manipulate our scores to form a normal distribution.

What are these schools with 240+ avgs? I'm sure there are some out there, but it's not the norm.

This is just word of mouth to be honest. I could see a 260 being the 95th percentile, maybe even higher, I just highly doubt its the top 1%. Can't really say much without the real numbers in front of you though.

edit: Didn't see that graph. Where on the NRMP is that? Or was it compiled?

 

[ijn]

edit: Didn't see that graph. Where on the NRMP is that? Or was it compiled?

It was compiled from Charting Outcomes 2011. The NRMP doesn't release their data in this particular fashion. The NRMP lists the number of students within each STEP 1 score bracket by specialty. Someone simply added it all up. The only caveat is that urology and ophthalmology aren't included in that data since they are part of separate match systems (so about ~750 people.)

 

[thehundredthone]

I own BRS Anatomy, and it seems like one of those books that's good assistance...
...unfortunately that takes a long long time to build.

I finished at the 84th percentile with 77% correct so I don't think that percentile score helps much. Anatomy is a subject that requires regular brushing up though, there are parts that cannot be understood conceptually.

 

[usmlefighter]

That sounds like an absolute nightmare. Gd bless anyone with a strong anatomy background.

50-60 questions just on GA+NA seems good for those who love Anatomy and Neuro. It can be absolutely bad day for those who ignore Gross Anatomy and just depends on FA and UW . It can badly influence step-1 score

 

[gravitywave]

I finished at the 84th percentile with 77% correct so I don't think that percentile score helps much. Anatomy is a subject that requires regular brushing up though, there are parts that cannot be understood conceptually.

i was a terrible anatomy student, and pretty much crammed all the anatomy i knew for the exam in the last three weeks before i took it. seemed to work out pretty well. of course i was studying other topics as well during this time, taking practice tests, etc.

that chart with the Step 1 data has been floating around SDN for a while, and to me it's quite suspect. you can't get that data out of Charting Outcomes alone and expect it to be 100% representative when the n values on Charting don't equal the numbers from the actual Match results. I do agree though that it's probably not a Gaussian distribution. USMLE isn't an achievement exam like the MCAT - it's not meant to stratify students accurately across the entire spectrum of possible performances. it's designed to do one thing - accurately establish whether the test taker is competent/passing, or not - it's a "yes/no" thing, not a "90th percentile is reliably superior to 80th percentile" thing.

 

[ijn]

that chart with the Step 1 data has been floating around SDN for a while, and to me it's quite suspect. you can't get that data out of Charting Outcomes alone and expect it to be 100% representative when the n values on Charting don't equal the numbers from the actual Match results.

Can you present an example where they don't match up?

 

[Phloston]

i was a terrible anatomy student, and pretty much crammed all the anatomy i knew for the exam in the last three weeks before i took it. seemed to work out pretty well. of course i was studying other topics as well during this time, taking practice tests, etc.

that chart with the Step 1 data has been floating around SDN for a while, and to me it's quite suspect. you can't get that data out of Charting Outcomes alone and expect it to be 100% representative when the n values on Charting don't equal the numbers from the actual Match results. I do agree though that it's probably not a Gaussian distribution. USMLE isn't an achievement exam like the MCAT - it's not meant to stratify students accurately across the entire spectrum of possible performances. it's designed to do one thing - accurately establish whether the test taker is competent/passing, or not - it's a "yes/no" thing, not a "90th percentile is reliably superior to 80th percentile" thing.

It actually is. BRS Behavioral even says so.

 

[alternatego]

wow I come back here after taking some weeks off and all of a sudden I see all the hatin' towards IMGs 🙁

at least in my case, it isn't that I chose to become an IMG - I was simply born in another country and studied there almost all my life (brief interruption for a 1 semester program I took at Georgetown). I also decided to take the boards during the last 2 semesters of medical school, the first of which was spent just doing research on what the hell Step 1 was all about and how the ECFMG paperwork was done

 

[RedSoxSuck]

wow I come back here after taking some weeks off and all of a sudden I see all the hatin' towards IMGs 🙁

at least in my case, it isn't that I chose to become an IMG - I was simply born in another country and studied there almost all my life (brief interruption for a 1 semester program I took at Georgetown). I also decided to take the boards during the last 2 semesters of medical school, the first of which was spent just doing research on what the hell Step 1 was all about and how the ECFMG paperwork was done

So what did you learn?


Don't go away from sdn!!

 

[gravitywave]

Can you present an example where they don't match up?

2011:
US senior FM matches = 1,301; CO only has 1,265
US senior GS matches = 897; CO only has 830
US senior IM matches = 2,940; CO has 2,947 (i can't even figure out what this means)

"Overall, there were Step 1 scores for 92.6 percent of applicants." (pg 6)

Don't get me wrong, Charting is a very useful tool - but it seems a sloppy way of trying to extract a reliable USMLE scoring curve - especially when this debate here revolves around whether a 261 is 97th or 95th or 90th or whatever.

It actually is. BRS Behavioral even says so.

here's another way of thinking about it: the kinds of tests that are often used for student assessment are norm-based: they compare test-takers to each other, establish a 'norm' based on the performance of the cohort, and then score everyone so that all the scores fit on a nice normal distribution. This ensures that all test-takers can be reliably compared to each other across the scoring scale (subject to whatever the standard error is). You can calculate percentiles reliably from the standard deviation with this distribution, and use them to compare individual performance at any level with that of the cohort as a whole.

The USMLE does not do this, at least not well. Instead, it is designed to reliably measure examinees' performance compared to an established standard: competency in the American preclinical curriculum. It is much more important that a test of this kind accurately measure an examinee's individual performance compared to the standard, so that the assessors can have a reasonable degree of certainty that those passing the exam are in fact competent. This type of exam is not nearly as good at being able to distinguish meaningful differences between examinees across the entire scale of possible scores, especially at the top end of the scale.

One type of exam is concerned with accuracy in comparison of examinees relative to each other; the other is concerned with accuracy in comparing examinees to a standard. You cannot have maximal accuracy in both within the same exam - the people who design the exam must choose.

 

[MrBeauregard]

The USMLE does not do this, at least not well. Instead, it is designed to reliably measure examinees' performance compared to an established standard: competency in the American preclinical curriculum. It is much more important that a test of this kind accurately measure an examinee's individual performance compared to the standard, so that the assessors can have a reasonable degree of certainty that those passing the exam are in fact competent. This type of exam is not nearly as good at being able to distinguish meaningful differences between examinees across the entire scale of possible scores, especially at the top end of the scale.

Incredibly well-stated. Finally someone who understands the original intent of the USMLE.

 

[thehundredthone]

2011:
US senior FM matches = 1,301; CO only has 1,265
US senior GS matches = 897; CO only has 830
US senior IM matches = 2,940; CO has 2,947 (i can't even figure out what this means)

Pardon my ignorance, what's CO?

One type of exam is concerned with accuracy in comparison of examinees relative to each other; the other is concerned with accuracy in comparing examinees to a standard. You cannot have maximal accuracy in both within the same exam - the people who design the exam must choose.

I agree, but who's going to tell the program directors?