Pass/ Fail Step 1

[sc2016]

If they did implement the Pass/Fail for Step 1, when will it be applied?
On the site it says that they will "Begin executing next steps (end of 2019 and throughout 2020). "
Does this mean that those who take the exam in then will have P/F or is it just to get ready for this implementation process (ie inform and notify schools and student etc). So, if it did take effect, do you think it would affect current 1st year AMGs who take their exam in the summer of 2020 for example OR would they begin changing the exam accordingly and spreading the news of the changes beginning end of 2019 and through 2020 and apply it to the incoming year (ie AMGs who take it in the summer of 2021).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[7331poas]

If they do announce a change, I imagine there will be a mad dash to get the last remaining test dates

 

[mingomango]

I hope this doesn't happen for another five-six years. Let the next generation deal with it!

 

[sc2016]

If they do announce a change, I imagine there will be a mad dash to get the last remaining test dates

Thats the thing. I dont think they will change it right off the bat, people need to adjust to the changes. Not only students but also med schools, they would need to change their curriculum, etc.

 

[sc2016]

Also, this will also affect the admissions process for AMGs and IMGs. But more so for AMGs in regards to residency as a student in a higher-tier med school with a lower step 1 score can get into a better residency program than a student in a lower-tier med school but much better step 1 score as now it is P/F. Also, MDs would now pick residency spots and the left over would be given to DO and IMG. So, they would need to give students time to adjust and apply to med schools accordingly.
Unfortunately, thing will also work with connections and networking and 'donations' etc.

 

[Chibucks15]

There was just a massive thread on this like 2 weeks ago. We about to rehash it?

 

[sc2016]

This is more in regards to when it might be implemented if it does go through, than whether if it is better or worse to do P/F

You might be saying, well first let us see whether it will be implemented before jumping a step and saying if it goes through. Thats the thing. They are probably going to change it, they would not otherwise announce it this much. It is like an ER doctor who received a dead patient, they do CPR regardless and tell the patient's relatives slowly in a couple of steps. They say the patient is in a critical condition before announcing they are dead, for them to adjust.
The announcement for P/F and the seminar is just because they need to make it 'official', they cant just out of the blue announce this sort of change, people would rebel much more.

 

[yangster1996]

If they did implement the Pass/Fail for Step 1, when will it be applied?
On the site it says that they will "Begin executing next steps (end of 2019 and throughout 2020). "
Does this mean that those who take the exam in then will have P/F or is it just to get ready for this implementation process (ie inform and notify schools and student etc). So, if it did take effect, do you think it would affect current 1st year AMGs who take their exam in the summer of 2020 for example OR would they begin changing the exam accordingly and spreading the news of the changes beginning end of 2019 and through 2020 and apply it to the incoming year (ie AMGs who take it in the summer of 2021).

What website says this?

 

[Lucca]

What website says this?

Home | United States Medical Licensing Examination

www.usmle.org

 

[Gurby]

There was just a massive thread on this like 2 weeks ago. We about to rehash it?

 

[wanderingorion]

So many people making these threads, with no definitive information about the changes out. It's just fearmongering

 

[Little Green Mensch]

I hope this doesn't happen for another five-six years. Let the next generation deal with it!

I assume you're being somewhat facetious, but "I've got mine" is a dangerous attitude to have in the long run. We have a duty to future generations of physicians to steward our profession, even if the changes being debated will not personally affect us.

I would encourage medical students to talk to their deans about the best approach to combat the push to make Step 1 pass/fail. Medicine should be made more meritocratic, not less; pass/fail testing will hurt good students at lower-tier schools and bolster poor students at more prestigious schools.

 

[anon6134]

Medicine should be made more meritocratic, not less; pass/fail testing will hurt good students at lower-tier schools and bolster poor students at more prestigious schools.

Merit based success is so last century

 

[medicineman1234]

So many people making these threads, with no definitive information about the changes out. It's just fearmongering

A nice change from the single payer fear mongering though! And let's not forget nurses and AI to spice things up.

 

[NickNaylor]

The problem is that all of the step exams were designed to be P/F. The exam is not designed such that a higher score somehow implies greater mastery. The USMLE even says as much, both in their information for the exam and in the score report. The problem is residencies utilizing the data for a purpose for which it was not intended - i.e., as a comparison tool rather than a tool to assess basic competency.

 

[7331poas]

The problem is that all of the step exams were designed to be P/F. The exam is not designed such that a higher score somehow implies greater mastery. The USMLE even says as much, both in their information for the exam and in the score report. The problem is residencies utilizing the data for a purpose for which it was not intended - i.e., as a comparison tool rather than a tool to assess basic competency.

That's weird, when I study more my score goes up.

 

[Raney Schauer]

I hope this doesn't happen for another five-six years. Let the next generation deal with it!

This is actually plausible.

 

[bobjonesbob]

The problem is that all of the step exams were designed to be P/F. The exam is not designed such that a higher score somehow implies greater mastery. The USMLE even says as much, both in their information for the exam and in the score report. The problem is residencies utilizing the data for a purpose for which it was not intended - i.e., as a comparison tool rather than a tool to assess basic competency.

To an extent you're right. Does Step 1 have the granularity that PDs should be setting arbitrary cutoffs at say 230 vs 240 or 240 vs 250? Definitely not. But to suggest that higher scores don't imply greater mastery of the material is nonsense. The material that's tested is well known and everyone uses the same resources. People who score higher have a better grasp of this information - not sure how you can deny that. Whether that's clinically reverent or whether it's a useful metric for residencies is a different story.

 

[Booze Aldrin]

My Step 1 score is real. Ya'lls step 1 scores are just social constructs.

 

[olabrador23]

United States Medical Licensing Examination | Invitational Conference on USMLE Scoring. Pros and Cons. Reading that list, it seems to me that the move to P/F would give more problems than potential benefits. If they want to make that change, solutions for all potential problems should be in place when the change happens.

No any information or plan I could find on the solutions to address the problems of "level playing field" for all examinees, including those from international and new or lesser known schools" and "If no USMLE numeric score exists, and the demand for a national assessment remains, what fills the gap?" What are PDs going to do? End of 2019 seems to be a rush.

 

[aldol16]

This is all up in the air. Presumably, they could implement it immediately. In this entirely hypothetical thought experiment, they could simply say we're now only reporting pass/fail so it doesn't matter whatever your score is, we will only report it as P or F to residencies. Whether you got a 270 or a 220, it no longer matters. Which of course sucks for everyone who took in the past and studied really hard for that 270.

On the other hand, if they only report scores after some future date as P/F, that could create massive chaos. Think about it. Yeah, they could say that all exams in 2020 will be reported P/F, for instance. Well, what happens to people who took a research year? They'll have scores and the younger folks won't. What happens to the MD/PhDs who took it 6 years ago? It has the potential to be a real mess unless they just say "We're reporting everyone's score as P/F no matter when you took it and won't report anything else."

 

[Booze Aldrin]

This is all up in the air. Presumably, they could implement it immediately. In this entirely hypothetical thought experiment, they could simply say we're now only reporting pass/fail so it doesn't matter whatever your score is, we will only report it as P or F to residencies. Whether you got a 270 or a 220, it no longer matters. Which of course sucks for everyone who took in the past and studied really hard for that 270.

Oh, let them effing try! I sweated bullets to get that score, and I'll send an email of interest to every damn program I'm applying to with my score report attached if it comes to that (as well as a CV for plausible deniability). If I'm going to go down I'm going to go down swinging.

 

[anon6134]

The exam is not designed such that a higher score somehow implies greater mastery

Right, because the 205 and the 255 students are equally gifted, knowledgeable, and hard working

 

[NickNaylor]

That's weird, when I study more my score goes up.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that the exam was designed to serve this purpose.

To an extent you're right. Does Step 1 have the granularity that PDs should be setting arbitrary cutoffs at say 230 vs 240 or 240 vs 250? Definitely not. But to suggest that higher scores don't imply greater mastery of the material is nonsense. The material that's tested is well known and everyone uses the same resources. People who score higher have a better grasp of this information - not sure how you can deny that. Whether that's clinically reverent or whether it's a useful metric for residencies is a different story.

Not denying the conclusion, but again, the fundamental design of the exam is not intended to "work" that way. The exam is designed to only provide a statement of competent/not competent based on your ability to correctly answer however many questions are needed to get the passing score.

Right, because the 205 and the 255 students are equally gifted, knowledgeable, and hard working

Not what I said.

I'm not making the argument that using USMLE scores in the way that they're currently used has no value. If anything, there is educational evidence that it does. I'm simply saying that the USMLE exams - at least steps 1 and 2 - were never intended to be used in the way that they are currently used by the test creators themselves. It's interesting that step 3 is treated really how the exam was meant to be treated - i.e., just pass the stupid thing and you're fine - yet there's no uproar or concern about this. The idea of moving USMLE exams to a P/F system isn't farfetched exactly because that's what it was intended to be in the first place.

 

[Lawpy]

Of course, but that doesn't mean that the exam was designed to serve this purpose.



Not denying the conclusion, but again, the fundamental design of the exam is not intended to "work" that way. The exam is designed to only provide a statement of competent/not competent based on your ability to correctly answer however many questions are needed to get the passing score.



Not what I said.

I'm not making the argument that using USMLE scores in the way that they're currently used has no value. If anything, there is educational evidence that it does. I'm simply saying that the USMLE exams - at least steps 1 and 2 - were never intended to be used in the way that they are currently used by the test creators themselves. It's interesting that step 3 is treated really how the exam was meant to be treated - i.e., just pass the stupid thing and you're fine - yet there's no uproar or concern about this. The idea of moving USMLE exams to a P/F system isn't farfetched exactly because that's what it was intended to be in the first place.

That's because Step 3 is taken during residency and people don't really care as long as they pass? Which i guess fits your earlier point before that Step 1 and Step 2 numerical importance is due to the weight placed by programs.

 

[anon6134]

We are graded throughout our entire lives. If you study harder, you score better. A 4.0 undergrad student has infinite more life options than a 1.9 student. Med schools are graded-If you skate by with a 70 because thats all you need to "pass", are you equivalent to the AOA student who scored in the 90's for 2-3 straight years in med school? Was medical designed to just be pass/fail with all passers considered equivalent?

I fail to understand how all of a sudden scores magically cease to reflect achievement in the STEP exams. If i studied for 2 weeks to pass with a 200 and vacationed the rest of M2 am I equivalent to the student that buckled down for 3 more months and scored a 260?

I have taken my Steps and matched so this will never affect me, I just fail to understand the logic behind these arguments

 

[Lawpy]

Also in all these Step 1 pass/fail discussions, I wish people (especially interest groups, medical education leaders etc.) also focused on getting rid of Step 2 CS

 

[ricksimmonsrafowens]

Also in all these Step 1 pass/fail discussions, I wish people (especially interest groups, medical education leaders etc.) also focused on getting rid of Step 2 CS

Yes! Or at least release sample grading rubrics they use to evaluate your performance! I can't believe that both Step 1 and Step 2CK have clear outlines of what is to be expected on the exam, but we have never seen a grading rubric for CS!

 

[anon6134]

Also in all these Step 1 pass/fail discussions, I wish people (especially interest groups, medical education leaders etc.) also focused on getting rid of Step 2 CS

Why get rid of an already useless measuring tool in the midst of making a useful one, useless

 

[sc2016]

Also in all these Step 1 pass/fail discussions, I wish people (especially interest groups, medical education leaders etc.) also focused on getting rid of Step 2 CS

Instead of getting rid of Step 2 CS, I heard that they are actually thinking of making it not just P or F but grading it.

 

[aldol16]

Oh, let them effing try! I sweated bullets to get that score, and I'll send an email of interest to every damn program I'm applying to with my score report attached if it comes to that (as well as a CV for plausible deniability). If I'm going to go down I'm going to go down swinging.

See, this is what I mean. If they get rid of reporting the scores altogether and you send in the "unofficial" score report, that makes you "that guy." The question is, do you want to be "that guy" to the PD. A lot of people would be screwed over if they made that change.

 

[ricksimmonsrafowens]

See, this is what I mean. If they get rid of reporting the scores altogether and you send in the "unofficial" score report, that makes you "that guy." The question is, do you want to be "that guy" to the PD. A lot of people would be screwed over if they made that change.

If I was a PD I'd definitely ask for score report if they have it. I'd be like a surgery PD or radiology/anesthesia tho, not an FM or psych PD. My personality is not right for FM or psych. If the applicant has a score, def use it. Even away rotations ask for a score.

 

[olabrador23]

Of course, but that doesn't mean that the exam was designed to serve this purpose.



Not denying the conclusion, but again, the fundamental design of the exam is not intended to "work" that way. The exam is designed to only provide a statement of competent/not competent based on your ability to correctly answer however many questions are needed to get the passing score.



Not what I said.

I'm not making the argument that using USMLE scores in the way that they're currently used has no value. If anything, there is educational evidence that it does. I'm simply saying that the USMLE exams - at least steps 1 and 2 - were never intended to be used in the way that they are currently used by the test creators themselves. It's interesting that step 3 is treated really how the exam was meant to be treated - i.e., just pass the stupid thing and you're fine - yet there's no uproar or concern about this. The idea of moving USMLE exams to a P/F system isn't farfetched exactly because that's what it was intended to be in the first place.

USMLE Step 1 and 2 are scored numerically, from a min score to a max score (e.g. 1-300 for Step 1) which, imho, allows the ranking of test takers and their levels of competency. Therefore it allows the secondary use of the scores as an objective metric in residency screening and selection.

If they wanted to be a real competency test, they could have made it scored like a driver license test, that is you only had to answer the questions until you scored enough to pass within an allotted time. You would not have continue answering questions when you hit the passing score.

Regardless, if USMLE wants to be P/F only and disallow the use of its scored in residency process, I guess it is their prerogative, they can do whatever they want to do and the heck with residency. My question is, what would PDs be going to do for objectivity and fairness in the process when they cannot depend on USMLE scores anymore? New exam system for this purpose?

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

The problem is that all of the step exams were designed to be P/F. The exam is not designed such that a higher score somehow implies greater mastery. The USMLE even says as much, both in their information for the exam and in the score report. The problem is residencies utilizing the data for a purpose for which it was not intended - i.e., as a comparison tool rather than a tool to assess basic competency.

Right. Just like the MCAT is designed to show that anyone that scores a 500 is competent enough for med school. Why stop at Step 1? Let's just make the MCAT P/F too? Oh and Step 2 while we're at it. All standardized exams should be P/F now. What a joke. Just because something is being used for something other than the original purpose doesn't make the new purpose without merit.

This is all up in the air. Presumably, they could implement it immediately. In this entirely hypothetical thought experiment, they could simply say we're now only reporting pass/fail so it doesn't matter whatever your score is, we will only report it as P or F to residencies. Whether you got a 270 or a 220, it no longer matters. Which of course sucks for everyone who took in the past and studied really hard for that 270.

On the other hand, if they only report scores after some future date as P/F, that could create massive chaos. Think about it. Yeah, they could say that all exams in 2020 will be reported P/F, for instance. Well, what happens to people who took a research year? They'll have scores and the younger folks won't. What happens to the MD/PhDs who took it 6 years ago? It has the potential to be a real mess unless they just say "We're reporting everyone's score as P/F no matter when you took it and won't report anything else."

Personally I think the only way they avoid all of this is to start with P/F in 3-4 years down the road. Announce it now but not implement it for a few years so that everyone knows that there will only be P's reported on applications starting in like 2024 or something like that. They have to give residencies time to adjust

Instead of getting rid of Step 2 CS, I heard that they are actually thinking of making it not just P or F but grading it.

Great, instead of using an objective, graded Step 1 score we all get to have our futures determined by a completely subjective score from a worthless test that doesn't even have an available rubric. THAT will make everything better. I'm sure it being graded will also somehow make the price go up too.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

My question is, what would PDs be going to do for objectivity and fairness in the process when they cannot depend on USMLE scores anymore?

There has been lots of talk of specialty specific exams if Step 1 turns into P/F. Seems to make the problem worse but hey, as long as the NBME gets to make more money right?

 

[olabrador23]

Right. Just like the MCAT is designed to show that anyone that scores a 500 is competent enough for med school. Why stop at Step 1? Let's just make the MCAT P/F too? Oh and Step 2 while we're at it. All standardized exams should be P/F now. What a joke. Just because something is being used for something other than the original purpose doesn't make the new purpose without merit.

Personally I think the only way they avoid all of this is to start with P/F in 3-4 years down the road. Announce it now but not implement it for a few years so that everyone knows that there will only be P's reported on applications starting in like 2024 or something like that. They have to give residencies time to adjust


Great, instead of using an objective, graded Step 1 score we all get to have our futures determined by a completely subjective score from a worthless test that doesn't even have an available rubric. THAT will make everything better. I'm sure it being graded will also somehow make the price go up too.

The whole thing really makes me think about the real intention of the people who propose the change. They are certainly very very smart. They would already know all the potential chaos and problems this change could cause. But they proposed the change anyway with no good solution to any of the problems it would create.

 

[olabrador23]

There has been lots of talk of specialty specific exams if Step 1 turns into P/F. Seems to make the problem worse but hey, as long as the NBME gets to make more money right?

that is probably it.

More chaos, more money to be made

 

[NickNaylor]

USMLE Step 1 and 2 are scored numerically, from a min score to a max score (e.g. 1-300 for Step 1) which, imho, allows the ranking of test takers and their levels of competency. Therefore it allows the secondary use of the scores as an objective metric in residency screening and selection.

If they wanted to be a real competency test, they could have made it scored like a driver license test, that is you only had to answer the questions until you scored enough to pass within an allotted time. You would not have continue answering questions when you hit the passing score.

The historical reason that scores were even included at all is that some state statutes required physicians to meet certain score minimums in order to be considered eligible for licensure. This is why, for example, the step scores are also reported using a 2-digit score despite the fact no one ever reports or discusses this score format - some states had this written into the actual licensure statues. The numerical scores were provided to meet these state requirements, not to serve any actual comparative purpose.

Right. Just like the MCAT is designed to show that anyone that scores a 500 is competent enough for med school. Why stop at Step 1? Let's just make the MCAT P/F too? Oh and Step 2 while we're at it. All standardized exams should be P/F now. What a joke. Just because something is being used for something other than the original purpose doesn't make the new purpose without merit.

No, this is fundamentally different. The MCAT is designed from the get-go to provide useful comparisons among students. That is the whole objective of the exam and why a "P/F" designation isn't included in the MCAT score report. It is not designed to say that you are "competent" enough for medical school. It is designed to say how good relative to other test takers you performed on the exam. Admissions committees then use that information however they would like.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

No, this is fundamentally different. The MCAT is designed from the get-go to provide useful comparisons among students. That is the whole objective of the exam and why a "P/F" designation isn't included in the MCAT score report. It is not designed to say that you are "competent" enough for medical school. It is designed to say how good relative to other test takers you performed on the exam. Admissions committees then use that information however they would like.

No it's quite literally not. You clearly haven't been reading the statements by the AAMC about it. They have been pushing really hard the idea that schools shouldn't use the MCAT to differentiate candidates after a 500, which is the 50th percentile and equivalent to an old 25.

 

[olabrador23]

The historical reason that scores were even included at all is that some state statutes required physicians to meet certain score minimums in order to be considered eligible for licensure. This is why, for example, the step scores are also reported using a 2-digit score despite the fact no one ever reports or discusses this score format - some states had this written into the actual licensure statues. The numerical scores were provided to meet these state requirements, not to serve any actual comparative purpose.

Even when the USMLE is scored because of it has to due to the law requirments, it does not take away my point that USMLE Step 1 and 2 are scored numerically which then allows the ranking and comparison.

 

[kb1900]

The historical reason that scores were even included at all is that some state statutes required physicians to meet certain score minimums in order to be considered eligible for licensure. This is why, for example, the step scores are also reported using a 2-digit score despite the fact no one ever reports or discusses this score format - some states had this written into the actual licensure statues. The numerical scores were provided to meet these state requirements, not to serve any actual comparative purpose.



No, this is fundamentally different. The MCAT is designed from the get-go to provide useful comparisons among students. That is the whole objective of the exam and why a "P/F" designation isn't included in the MCAT score report. It is not designed to say that you are "competent" enough for medical school. It is designed to say how good relative to other test takers you performed on the exam. Admissions committees then use that information however they would like.

you are stating misinformation here that the MCAT is "designed from the get-go to provide useful comparisons among students"

when the new mcat was released they explicitly stated that their intent was above a 500 = the point at which completion of medical school without failures became a nonissue. obviously medical schools have straight up not taken that idea into consideration whatsover, but the written intention of the new MCAT is very much analogous to the idea of step 1 fundamentally being a pass-based licensing exam when it was first created.

at the end of the day, as long as their are percentiles and numerical scores, there will be comparisons. how could a program compare students otherwise? i mean think about how many people do fluff research to boost their "publication count".


tbh my speculation based on the release of the new NBME practice forms is that they are, intentionally or not, making the exam less memorization based and more "can you work through this completely random question you've hardly ever come across before" with application of foundational concepts + some details + test taking skills to further stratify scores, rather than the opposite. its very similar to how the mcat changed imo. as someone said elsewhere, the previous attitude of "H. pylori = gastric MALToma" is fading away.

 

[olabrador23]

The historical reason that scores were even included at all is that some state statutes required physicians to meet certain score minimums in order to be considered eligible for licensure. This is why, for example, the step scores are also reported using a 2-digit score despite the fact no one ever reports or discusses this score format - some states had this written into the actual licensure statues. The numerical scores were provided to meet these state requirements, not to serve any actual comparative purpose.

oh wait, so what will happen when USMLE goes P/F? Does it mean that USMLE is no longer have to report numeric scores to those states or that USMLE is still running and reporting numeric scores to the states simultaneously to the official P/F system?

 

[kb1900]

oh wait, so what will happen when USMLE goes P/F? Does it mean that USMLE is no longer have to report numeric scores to those states or that USMLE is still running and reporting numeric scores to the states simultaneously to the official P/F system?

its not a matter of "when" and i hate that so many people think this. nothing has been decided and it says it right on their website. they have had discussions a few times and are in the process of writing up their recommendations and proposed changes.

some change is inevitable, but to assume pass/fail is coming is borderline hyperbolic

honestly an admin needs to edit this thread and add this link to the OP: United States Medical Licensing Examination | Invitational Conference on USMLE Scoring

 

[olabrador23]

its not a matter of "when" and i hate that so many people think this. nothing has been decided and it says it right on their website. they have had discussions a few times and are in the process of writing up their recommendations and proposed changes.

some change is inevitable, but to assume pass/fail is coming is borderline hyperbolic

honestly an admin needs to edit this thread and add this link to the OP: United States Medical Licensing Examination | Invitational Conference on USMLE Scoring

Yes they are discussing how they are going to change the scoring system to possibly P/F ("While it is anticipated that the conference will focus on numeric score reporting vs. Pass/Fail score reporting, other score reporting options will be considered.")

so, imho it is not unreasonable to assume that P/F might be a reality. Otherwise they would not discuss it. (Some people like to think ahead and not wait to last minute and plan accordingly. But to each their own, I guess.)

and this is the timeline they are planning:

Timeline* - updated May 2019

December 2018	Invitations extended to leaders and subject matter experts from major stakeholder groups. These include but are not limited to state medical boards, graduate medical education program directors, student affairs deans, clerkship directors, medical students and residents, and the public. Representatives from organizations such as ACGME, NRMP, LCME, etc. have also been invited to participate.
February 2019	Attendees and organizations asked to share perspectives in advance of meeting
March 11-12, 2019	Invitational Conference on USMLE Scoring
June 2019	Update presented to AMA Council on Medical Education. Preliminary recommendation(s) will be posted on this webpage; 6 week period for open commentary.
July/August 2019	Development of final recommendation(s)
Fall 2019	Presentation of final recommendations pertaining to USMLE and broader system to CEOs and co-convening organizations' senior leadership, as well as USMLE governance. Completion and submission of manuscript. Post final outcome of any approved recommendations.
Winter 2019-2020	Begin executing next steps (end of 2019 and throughout 2020).

*This timeline is an approximation. The details (both in scope and complexity) of any recommendation(s) derived from InCUS may impact the projected timeline for approval.
Additional Key Literature »

Home | United States Medical Licensing Examination

www.usmle.org

 

[Booze Aldrin]

Winter 2019-2020

Begin executing next steps (end of 2019 and throughout 2020).

Whew! My ERAS and it's accompanying Step I score report will be released into the world come September, and it seems not a moment too soon neither. Once it's out, there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube for the NBME clowns.

Anyone with a good Step score thinking of taking a research year is playing Russian roulette at this point.

 

[7331poas]

its not a matter of "when" and i hate that so many people think this. nothing has been decided and it says it right on their website. they have had discussions a few times and are in the process of writing up their recommendations and proposed changes.

some change is inevitable, but to assume pass/fail is coming is borderline hyperbolic

honestly an admin needs to edit this thread and add this link to the OP: United States Medical Licensing Examination | Invitational Conference on USMLE Scoring

It also says on their site that they could "execute change" as early as this winter.

Chill out man

 

[Gurby]

Anyone with a good Step score thinking of taking a research year is playing Russian roulette at this point.

Or maybe they're hedging their bets, since in a post-step world publications will likely be even more important than before.

 

[Frogger27]

Or maybe they're hedging their bets, since in a post-step world publications will likely be even more important than before.

and I am sure PDs would feel much more comfortable accepting a student with a good step score vs rolling the dice with a good student but no step score

 

[Espressso]

There's literally so much speculation among these discussions. And there's infinite possibilities of how it might change. It's probably best to relax. I highly doubt if they move it to p/f, they will move step 2 ck to p/f too. So if that was the case, then step 2 becomes mandatory. Just look at the PD survey... when it comes to accepting a student who you interviewed, step 2 is top of the list. And step 1 moves way down. A change in step 1 scoring to p/f would simply make step 2 the top priority for both granting an interview and accepting interviewed applicants. And odds are highly competitive programs will probably formulate their own specialty-specific entrance exam that applicants must take, to further help differentiate and stratify applicants.

TBH I don't think this is all that crazy of an idea. The idea of #Step1Mania is real and I don't think it's sustainable. There's a real argument, as NickNaylor is saying, that it used to be p/f and it was working really well. And when they added the new scoring system, programs took off with it and it became crazy within a decade.

@aProgDirector had great comments about this in a previous thread.

 

[anon6134]

There's literally so much speculation among these discussions. And there's infinite possibilities of how it might change. It's probably best to relax. I highly doubt if they move it to p/f, they will move step 2 ck to p/f too. So if that was the case, then step 2 becomes mandatory. Just look at the PD survey... when it comes to accepting a student who you interviewed, step 2 is top of the list. And step 1 moves way down. A change in step 1 scoring to p/f would simply make step 2 the top priority for both granting an interview and accepting interviewed applicants. And odds are highly competitive programs will probably formulate their own specialty-specific entrance exam that applicants must take, to further help differentiate and stratify applicants.

TBH I don't think this is all that crazy of an idea. The idea of #Step1Mania is real and I don't think it's sustainable. There's a real argument, as NickNaylor is saying, that it used to be p/f and it was working really well. And when they added the new scoring system, programs took off with it and it became crazy within a decade.

@aProgDirector had great comments about this in a previous thread.

I fail to see how it is beneficial to have one exam dictate the rest of your career in place of two. Not to mention if Step 2 is the only metric, instead of actually paying attention during rotations and learning clinical skills post Step 1, Step 2 mania will take its place and students will be doing anki on their phones all day and night instead of learning actual useful information.

And please explain the difference between these hypothetical "specialty specific" entrance exam and the already existing shelf exams that everyone already takes