Sorry for the long post. Feel free to PM with any questions! Thanks to everyone for their help with my ridiculous questions (you know who you are)
Total study time: approximately 8 weeks
Resources used:
Primary--pathoma, UW, FA, Goljan audio
Secondary—subject-specific books for biochem and anatomy, microcards, and Anki using DrWillBe’s deck
Before dedicated study: so about 6 months or so before my dedicated study period I started using the Anki deck. I figured this was the only thing that was worth doing so far out from the test. I basically did it on my way to and from campus. It was great for a while, then I kinda lost interest, not sure why. I wouldn’t recommend getting it. I know there are a lot of hardcore ANKI fans on this forum, nothing wrong with time-spaced repetition, I just personally wouldn’t recommend it. I also listened to Goljan’s audio a couple months out, and got through it twice (sped it up on VLC). This wasn’t hardcore studying obviously, but it just put me in the mindset and got me thinking about step 1-related material.
Maybe two months before dedicated study period I went through all of pathoma with both the book and audio. I then read FA entirely through once (might have skimped out on the biochem at that time, I don’t think its necessary to read any of that before dedicated study period). After that, I did pathoma another time. At this point I had highlighted all of the important information in pathoma and FA.
Dedicated study period
Practice Tests:
NBME 5 at the beginning of dedicated study period: 247
NBME 6 (7 weeks out): 252 (92.5%)
UWSA 1 (6 weeks out): 265+ (84.5% correct)
UWSA 2 (4 weeks out): 265+ (90% correct)
NBME 7 (2 weeks out): 273 (98%)
NBME 11/12 (1 week out): 264/271 (95%/97.5%)
NBME 13/15 (4 days out): 268/268 (96%/96.5%)
Average of last 5 NBMEs (what I cared about): 268.8
I included my percentages because I think it’s valuable to know what a scaled score translate into (especially in the case of UWSA, which maxes out at 265 at approximately 84% according to other threads on this forum)
I did minimal studying the day before the test. Went over some high-yield pharm from FA and my incorrect answers from the NBMEs. That was about it.
The actual test: In general, the test wasn't much harder than any NBME. There were definitely a few hard questions in each section obviously, but I think overall it was the same difficulty as the other NBMEs. As such, I think the curve was just as harsh as it is on the practice NBMEs (maybe slightly more lenient, it's really hard to tell). The first two sections were significantly harder for me than the rest, and I'm not sure if it just took me a while to get in the groove of things or if they truly were harder. Questions were of pretty reasonable length. There were definitely some long stems, which isn't a big deal at all, just gotta read the last sentence and then zoom through the main stem. A lot of people complain about the stems and how it's designed to waste their time, which is true--so just don't let it.
My goal was to have at least one through of the section with 25-30 minutes to spare, and I was thankfully able to hit that mark with most sections. I think went through my marked questions a second time. I think went back to the first question and went through the entire section again just making sure I still liked all my answers. I think this is really important--at least once if not twice I realized I had misread the question (increased instead of decreased, or whatever) and had the entirely wrong answer. Whoops. You gotta make it a priority to go through as much of the section again as possible, and that means committing to practically skimming the stems the first time around. I realize that's controversial, and some people will advocate slowing down and just having a solid one-time run through of the section, but I think it really helps to have almost a full 25-30 minutes to review each section. Think about how much you could do in that time.
On ANY ethics question and ANY calculation question, I automatically marked it to take a second look. This was after I realized during practice tests that I tend to make stupid mistakes on these types of questions. I would always go back and read the ethical situation with a fresh pair of eyes, and I would always recalculate the biostats. Turned out I never needed to change my answer for these, but it was worth it.
For a few questions, if I knew it was going to take me too long to wrap my head around it, I would just skip it until my second run-through so that I didn't interrupt my flow (also probably a controversial test technique). These included those research-type questions mainly. There weren't as many of these as I was expecting honestly (that's not a good thing or a bad thing)
Final thoughts: I think the most important thing to keep in mind when studying, as many have said before, is to put things in perspective. The test is just one component of the application for residency, so it's not the end of the world if you don't get above the average score for the specialty in which you're applying. Remember, half the accepted applicants in your intended residency get BELOW the average Step 1 score for that residency, and that person could be you. Also, the stress can actually impede your studying, which could produce a negative-spiraling effect (worse scores, more stress, worse scores, etc). The next most important thing to keep in mind is that you cannot overdo it. Like stress, overstudying can have a very tangible negative impact on your score. I don't think ANYONE should study more than ten hours a day (unless you have less than 4 weeks to study, then that's a whole other ballgame).
In terms of specific study pearls, if I decided a certain topic or disease was important enough for the test, I made sure to learn EVERYTHING about that topic that could possible be in the scope of the exam. Yes, it's a little subjective on how you evaluate what is in the scope, but nobody can really help you with that, you just have to figure it out for yourself. As an easy example (not related to my exam), you may read in First Aid that leishmaniasis causes kala-azar, but that information is worthless unless you truly know the presentation of kala-azar. If the test-writers just provided the diagnosis of kala-azar and asked for the organism causing it, the national average would be 250. So any disease that First Aid mentions, you should know the presentation and treatment of it whether or not that information is also in First Aid. Similarly, for pharm, you should know the mechanism of action for every drug you learn about. Most drugs in first aid do not have a mechanism listed. Doesn't matter. Learn the MOA, or don't bother learning the drug.
Final result: 270+
Couldn't be happier with that. I got lucky for sure.
Thanks again for all the help on this forum, I'll try to return the favor as much as I can. PM with any questions!
