People don't have guts to apply to competitive fields these days

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I agree with you on the whole but they seem convinced that some orthopods/cards guys who don't operate that much can make a big chunk of change by doing reads. He also complained about private practices being sweatshops with massive requirements for reads and said that cutting spots would only make this problem worse. There's also the question of radiologist assistants. Again, I don't agree with this. I'm just conveying what they seemed to passionately believe.

They are right to a certain extent in that some specialties (most notably cardiology) encroach on imaging turf by reading echos, diagnostic caths, and cardiac MRIs. Sure this problem could be exacerbated if there was a huge shortage of radiologists to read the studies. However that is simply not the case right now, and continuing to saturate the market to prevent future turf wars seems like a poor strategy that happens to benefit those at the top who run large imaging companies or use resident services.
 
That's crazy.

I'm pretty comfortable looking at cross-sectional imaging that is relevant to my practice (tumors, evaluating for respectability; evaluating for bowel obstructions; appendicitis; diverticulitis; etc).

I would NEVER take on the legal obligations of being the formal reader on an image. There is way too much that is outside my training, and the skills I do have at evaluating imaging have largely been picked up informally on the job. I'm not going to catch the random pathology or lung nodule, and there is so much I don't know about imaging.

Despite our hubris about reading our own imaging, I can't imagine many surgeons willing to put their name on the dotted line...
Thank you!!! That would never happen.

There's a reason DR residency is 4 years in length. Clinicians will read films themselves also, but to say that there is a chance they would take over and do the entire report to stay for eternity is ridiculous.
 
That's crazy.

I'm pretty comfortable looking at cross-sectional imaging that is relevant to my practice (tumors, evaluating for respectability; evaluating for bowel obstructions; appendicitis; diverticulitis; etc).

I would NEVER take on the legal obligations of being the formal reader on an image. There is way too much that is outside my training, and the skills I do have at evaluating imaging have largely been picked up informally on the job. I'm not going to catch the random pathology or lung nodule, and there is so much I don't know about imaging.

Despite our hubris about reading our own imaging, I can't imagine many surgeons willing to put their name on the dotted line...

That is an interesting point. The cases where people officially read their own imaging seem to be much more specific, like echo or diagnostic cath in which the entire study shows 1 organ system that you happen to specialize in. More anatomic based imaging is trickier because you are taking responsibility for the entire read, including GI, GU, MSK, and gyn for a typical CT abdomen.
 
They are right to a certain extent in that some specialties (most notably cardiology) encroach on imaging turf by reading echos, diagnostic caths, and cardiac MRIs. Sure this problem could be exacerbated if there was a huge shortage of radiologists to read the studies. However that is simply not the case right now, and continuing to saturate the market to prevent future turf wars seems like a poor strategy that happens to benefit those at the top who run large imaging companies or use resident services.
The encroachment in that area is not bc of too few radiologists. It's bc those things are used directly in their practice of Cardiology - reading echos, caths, cardiac MRIs, etc.
 
That is an interesting point. The cases where people officially read their own imaging seem to be much more specific, like echo or diagnostic cath in which the entire study shows 1 organ system that you happen to specialize in. More anatomic based imaging is trickier because you are taking responsibility for the entire read, including GI, GU, MSK, and gyn for a typical CT abdomen.

Yes. I mean, our vascular surgeons obviously read their own angios, and they also read vascular lab studies (ultrasound). But those are again very specific to their practice and the images ONLY assess the relevant vasculature. And for the ultrasounds I think they actually go through a formal certification program.
 
Yes. I mean, our vascular surgeons obviously read their own angios, and they also read vascular lab studies (ultrasound). But those are again very specific to their practice and the images ONLY assess the relevant vasculature. And for the ultrasounds I think they actually go through a formal certification program.

Do you know any PB surgeons who will officially read their MRCPs?
 
Do you know any PB surgeons who will officially read their MRCPs?

No. We actually have a very well integrated/multidisciplinary program for pancreatic/liver/etc cancer. The radiologists come to tumor board and discuss the case with the surgeons and medical oncologists in attendance to come up with the treatment plan. Our radiologists have standardized templates for their reads of CT/MR/etc that they have developed in conjunction with med and surg onc to make sure that they are giving us all the information we want/need (vascular involvement for pancreatic cancer, for example)

The other side of it is...reading the image is only one part of it. You also have to know how to protocol an image and take responsibility to supervise the techs actually doing the test. I have zero clue how an MRCP actually gets done and what is needed to do to protocol it. For a pancreas protocol CT I know how thick the slices are and that there are multiple phases of contrast administration involved and how to look at the different phases but again that's about it.

Radiology gets left to the professionals.
 
b8421e56d722a4dc87e0c3fdfff9ca85.jpg
 
They are right to a certain extent in that some specialties (most notably cardiology) encroach on imaging turf by reading echos, diagnostic caths, and cardiac MRIs. Sure this problem could be exacerbated if there was a huge shortage of radiologists to read the studies. However that is simply not the case right now, and continuing to saturate the market to prevent future turf wars seems like a poor strategy that happens to benefit those at the top who run large imaging companies or use resident services.

That's why they won't change anything. Having the market super saturated benefits those in charge and the ABR.
 
Or maybe you're just smarter. 😉

Not hardly.

There was really no emphasis on test scores back in the day. Now, because they let anyone into medical school, standardized tests matter as a baseline at best. But, we also don't want to waste a >235 going into Emergency Medicine.
 
Not hardly.

There was really no emphasis on test scores back in the day. Now, because they let anyone into medical school, standardized tests matter as a baseline at best. But, we also don't want to waste a >235 going into Emergency Medicine.
Yes. I would also have to agree that it's actually EASIER to get into medical school now than it was previously (MD, DO, Caribbean), esp. with all these new untested schools popping up.
 
That's crazy.

I'm pretty comfortable looking at cross-sectional imaging that is relevant to my practice (tumors, evaluating for respectability; evaluating for bowel obstructions; appendicitis; diverticulitis; etc).

I would NEVER take on the legal obligations of being the formal reader on an image. There is way too much that is outside my training, and the skills I do have at evaluating imaging have largely been picked up informally on the job. I'm not going to catch the random pathology or lung nodule, and there is so much I don't know about imaging.

Despite our hubris about reading our own imaging, I can't imagine many surgeons willing to put their name on the dotted line...
This is the most important part about turf is that if you want to take it, you have to truly own it and all the liabilities.

I encourage all the clinicians to look at the imaging either by themselves or in the RR. The problem is that they don't have the systemic interpretation pattern needed for full interpretation.

What percent of the time do clinicians look at the CT scout or MRI localizer sequences?
 
Why is that actually? Is the test just easier, or are the students better taught? What is it?

Students are not better taught lol. The test is also way harder. Just the prep is better with uworld and pathoma.
 
How does increased number of Radiology graduates have anything to do with turf wars over certain procedures/imaging? If anything the number of imaging requests will go down due to Medicare refusing to reimburse it (i.e. why did you get that 4th CT scan in 3 years? Nope, not paying). Still doesn't explain why FMGs are not mandated to do a Diagnostic Radiology residency. AMGs still find Radiology to be popular.

Putting together different fellowships haphazardly doesn't = Diagnostic Radiology residency. Also, I think Radiology needs to stop making Nuclear Medicine a residency and only make it a fellowship after residency.

I don't know about imaging requests going down, just think of all the CTs that are going to be done now for all the smokers 55-80yo based on the USPTF recommendations. Estimated to cost Medicare $9 billion dollars, purely from imaging.
 
I don't know about imaging requests going down, just think of all the CTs that are going to be done now for all the smokers 55-80yo based on the USPTF recommendations. Estimated to cost Medicare $9 billion dollars, purely from imaging.
Any increase in one area will find cuts in other areas.
 
Yes. I would also have to agree that it's actually EASIER to get into medical school now than it was previously (MD, DO, Caribbean), esp. with all these new untested schools popping up.
It's probably true if you are going outside of the country, but the stats say a different story for US schools...
 
For DO schools?
Even for DO school the stats have been going up sharply... 10 years ago, 20 MCAT would have gotten someone into DO school. Now if you are not at least in the mid 20s, your chances are slim-to-none. Even Liberty University first entrance class has a 25 average MCAT according to what they reported...
 
Even for DO school the stats have been going up sharply... 10 years ago, 20 MCAT would have gotten someone into DO school. Now if you are not at least in the mid 20s, your chances are slim-to-none. Even Liberty University first entrance class has a 25 average MCAT according to what they reported...
A 20 is a piss-poor score. A 25 MCAT score is still ridiculous.
 
I wonder how many of those students going for Derm and Ortho were advised by their Dean of Student Affairs, Faculty members/mentors from those specialties, after seeing their full application that they should 1) either not apply or 2) apply but at least should have a backup, and yet they still applied to that specialty anyway without any backup. In medical school, you HAVE to be flexible, you can't be completely rigid.

There's a reason the NRMP and AAMC came together to release the Charting Outcomes of the Match. It's bc 1) students wanted better advising than what they were getting and 2) students weren't listening to their advisors and this was a way to give them very objective data that they couldn't argue against.

Millenial medical students are known to be quite different than their predecessors so it's not really that surprising.
They were probably advised to shoot for Derm and Ortho based on the latest Charting Outcomes, which is ridiculously out of date by now.

My class will likely be planning their careers based on 5-year-old trends, completely ignoring the effects of rising demands for lifestyle specialties and not taking into account the huge rise of competitive med students that appeared after the great recession.

There's going to be a lot more bending over and picking up the SOAP in the next couple of years.
 
They were probably advised to shoot for Derm and Ortho based on the latest Charting Outcomes, which is ridiculously out of date by now.

My class will likely be planning their careers based on 5-year-old trends, completely ignoring the effects of rising demands for lifestyle specialties and not taking into account the huge rise of competitive med students that appeared after the great recession.

There's going to be a lot more bending over and picking up the SOAP in the next couple of years.
The last Charting Outcomes was in 2011. Hardly that much of a difference.
 
I wonder how many of those students going for Derm and Ortho were advised by their Dean of Student Affairs, Faculty members/mentors from those specialties, after seeing their full application that they should 1) either not apply or 2) apply but at least should have a backup, and yet they still applied to that specialty anyway without any backup. In medical school, you HAVE to be flexible, you can't be completely rigid.

There's a reason the NRMP and AAMC came together to release the Charting Outcomes of the Match. It's bc 1) students wanted better advising than what they were getting and 2) students weren't listening to their advisors and this was a way to give them very objective data that they couldn't argue against.

Millenial medical students are known to be quite different than their predecessors so it's not really that surprising.

Oh you mean by the way they have to rack up twice the debt and make half as much as their predecessors coming out of residency? I'd agree, quite different to be sure.
 
Stats for reasonably established MD schools have definitely gone up. One of my mentors got into Penn in 1997 with a 34 MCAT, which he described as exceptional at the time (averages for all top 5 schools were 34-35).
 
Like someone brought up earlier, my question was more along the lines of why give up a good shot at ophtho/ortho/etc. when you have a high 230 to just got to internal medicine solely because of prestige. If you want to chase prestige good luck, but I'd rather have the career I most enjoy.

Since DermViser called me out, why don't you enlighten me on what score not to consider these fields. 240, 250, 260? Like you said board score is only one piece of the puzzle, and for many people that score isn't a strength but isn't so poor to consider them not as capable.

1. Derm/Plastics/ENT: maybe I will give you 230's isn't good enough
2. Ortho/Uro/Neurosurg/Ophtho/RadOnc: 230's should give you reason to apply
3. Everything else: apply

Yes, the prestige and locale of the match won't be as great, but I sure would rather match mid-tier in ortho or uro with a 235-240 than match at some powerhouse in neurology or internal med with the same score
 
Like someone brought up earlier, my question was more along the lines of why give up a good shot at ophtho/ortho/etc. when you have a high 230 to just got to internal medicine solely because of prestige. If you want to chase prestige good luck, but I'd rather have the career I most enjoy.

Since DermViser called me out, why don't you enlighten me on what score not to consider these fields. 240, 250, 260? Like you said board score is only one piece of the puzzle, and for many people that score isn't a strength but isn't so poor to consider them not as capable.

1. Derm/Plastics/ENT: maybe I will give you 230's isn't good enough
2. Ortho/Uro/Neurosurg/Ophtho/RadOnc: 230's should give you reason to apply
3. Everything else: apply

Yes, the prestige and locale of the match won't be as great, but I sure would rather match mid-tier in ortho or uro with a 235-240 than match at some powerhouse in neurology or internal med with the same score
You did a complete 180 on this post from your original post re: board score and specialty. A 240+ does not close the door on any specialty.
 
This.



And the fact that most med students spend way more time studying for step 1 than they used to 10yrs ago. If you talk to most attendings they'll tell you they spent 1-2weeks at most studying for the exam. Nowadays 4-6 weeks is the norm for most med students and if you spend any time of the SDN step 1 forum most of those guys are studying for 4-6months and doing 5,000+ qbank questions to get that 250.

I think they just forgot: back in the day, the following described the amount of studying for Steps 1,2 and 3 respectively, " 2 months, 2 weeks, number 2 pencil".
 
Always hated that expression. I wanted to scream at them "LIARS!!"
Too much or too little studying?

Apparently some think that Step 1 is harder now than it used to be (which would imply that students are either better prepared or have more resources since the average scores on all standardized tests -SAT, ACT, MCAT and so on are all higher than they used to be).
 
Too much or too little studying?

Apparently some think that Step 1 is harder now than it used to be (which would imply that students are either better prepared or have more resources since the average scores on all standardized tests -SAT, ACT, MCAT and so on are all higher than they used to be).
Too little.

Step 1 has gotten harder. The test writers themselves have acknowledged this. They don't say it's harder of course, they say it's "better methods of physician asssesment.

- buzzwords largely taken out
- clinical vignettes
- sequential item sets that don't allow you to go back once you've answered the previous question in that set
- gross and histo images/
- interactive where you can move the stethoscope and hear heart murmur sounds

I would say more resources available by far. I can't imagine answering Path questions only wielding BRS Path or answering Biochem questions by having to go thru Lippincott's Biochem :dead:
 
Too little.

Step 1 has gotten harder. The test writers themselves have acknowledged this. They don't say it's harder of course, they say it's "better methods of physician asssesment.

- buzzwords largely taken out
- clinical vignettes
- sequential item sets that don't allow you to go back once you've answered the previous question in that set
- gross and histo images/
- interactive where you can move the stethoscope and hear heart murmur sounds


Really? Cool.

I'd heard that they'd taken out the buzzwords which would make it easier on some level although I always liked the clinical scenarios. We also had gross and histo images back in the 90s, so that's not new.


would say more resources available by far. I can't imagine answering Path questions only wielding BRS Path or answering Biochem questions by having to go thru Lippincott's Biochem :dead:


Ack! Lippincotts Biochem. Oh god the memories....
 
Really? Cool.

I'd heard that they'd taken out the buzzwords which would make it easier on some level although I always liked the clinical scenarios. We also had gross and histo images back in the 90s, so that's not new.

Ack! Lippincotts Biochem. Oh god the memories....
I forgot there were sometimes radiologic images, but those might have been on your exam too, as well as diagrams and graphs to test your understanding rather than your ability to rote memorize.

I always hated clinical vignettes bc I always felt like they needed to get to the point. It was all just window dressing.
BSN61fn.jpg


Yes, now people either use Rapid Review Biochem or do Kaplan Biochem. MUCH MUCH less information than Lippincott's Biochem (shudder at the level of dense infor and organic chem structure emphasis).
 
I forgot there were sometimes radiologic images, but those might have been on your exam too, as well as diagrams and graphs to test your understanding rather than your ability to rote memorize.

I always hated clinical vignettes bc I always felt like they needed to get to the point. It was all just window dressing.
BSN61fn.jpg


Yes, now people either use Rapid Review Biochem or do Kaplan Biochem. MUCH MUCH less information than Lippincott's Biochem (shudder at the level of dense infor and organic chem structure emphasis).

LOL this post on writing a NBME question is sad and true yet so hilarious.
 
Really? Cool.

I'd heard that they'd taken out the buzzwords which would make it easier on some level although I always liked the clinical scenarios. We also had gross and histo images back in the 90s, so that's not new.





Ack! Lippincotts Biochem. Oh god the memories....

Yeah try liking clinical vignettes when you don't have any clinical experience. Or when you get three paragraphs of history and physical with labs when the question is "what is the mechanism of this drug"
 
Yeah try liking clinical vignettes when you don't have any clinical experience. Or when you get three paragraphs of history and physical with labs when the question is "what is the mechanism of this drug"
I think there were clinical vignettes then, they've just made them longer now. Still all window dressing.
 
Yeah timing is a pain in the ass on the real test. Always had 20 minutes left after finishing the 46 blocks on U world or the practice NBMEs. On the real thing I ran out of time on 2-3 of the sections on the last questions and was very pressured on the other sections.
 
Too little.

Step 1 has gotten harder. The test writers themselves have acknowledged this. They don't say it's harder of course, they say it's "better methods of physician asssesment.

- buzzwords largely taken out
- clinical vignettes
- sequential item sets that don't allow you to go back once you've answered the previous question in that set
- gross and histo images/
- interactive where you can move the stethoscope and hear heart murmur sounds

It's really not that bad. My test was like 25% slam dunks. If you were even half-asleep in the first two years, you should nail every single one of these questions. For example, my very first question on the real deal was classic bacterial pneumonia with gram stain results and the only cocci in the answer list was Strep pneumo. I had a question that straight-up asked me what inheritance mode is sickle cell disease.

I had no sequentials on my exam and from talking to like 25-30 kids at my school, only a very few had any sequentials. Even the huge Step 1 thread in the Step 1 forums says a paucity of sequentials.

Images were classic images that Pathoma or Goljan will show you. I did no extra studying for images and I never once said to myself "boy I wish I looked at more pictures". If they want you to diagnose AML, they will show Auer rods in up-close, gritty detail. No question will ask you whether or not a cervical biopsy is CIN I, II or III based on a picture.

The heart murmurs were, for the most part, concise and classic. Aortic stenosis will be absolutely silent everywhere except over the aortic region. Mitral regurg will be silent everywhere except over the mitral area. Often times, that's all you need because all the other answer choices won't even be in the right area. I had 4-5 murmur questions on the real deal and only one was like "here's the dude for his physical exam, what's his finding". The rest gave classic clinical vignettes (eg stenosis -> syncope on exertion).

Yes, the exam is difficult, but it's also placed on a pedestal by a lot of medical students. I had an upperclassman tell me that he had like 3 "recall questions" which was a blatant lie. The vast majority of the exam (>250 questions) are either 1-step or 2-step questions.
 
Yes, but if you do General Surgery at a highly academic program like MGH, you have a higher chance of getting to do a fellowship in Plastics, vs. doing General Surgery at a community hospital program for example.

I'm differentiating between those who apply to Gen Surg as a back-up (along with applying to integrated plastics) and those who apply to Gen Surg (without also applying to integrated plastics). I mean the latter.

But based off maxxor's post, I understand the discrepancy, at least in radiology. I wonder if that's similarly applicable to other fields that don't have near the same job crunch of fields like radiology and pathology.
 
I'm differentiating between those who apply to Gen Surg as a back-up (along with applying to integrated plastics) and those who apply to Gen Surg (without also applying to integrated plastics). I mean the latter.

But based off maxxor's post, I understand the discrepancy, at least in radiology. I wonder if that's similarly applicable to other fields that don't have near the same job crunch of fields like radiology and pathology.
The job crunch in Radiology is a relatively recent phenomenon. The reason it's not as "competitive" is that there are so many programs (of varying quality). As a whole though, it is still quite competitive if you look at Outcomes of the Match.
 
It's really not that bad. My test was like 25% slam dunks. If you were even half-asleep in the first two years, you should nail every single one of these questions. For example, my very first question on the real deal was classic bacterial pneumonia with gram stain results and the only cocci in the answer list was Strep pneumo. I had a question that straight-up asked me what inheritance mode is sickle cell disease.

I had no sequentials on my exam and from talking to like 25-30 kids at my school, only a very few had any sequentials. Even the huge Step 1 thread in the Step 1 forums says a paucity of sequentials.

Images were classic images that Pathoma or Goljan will show you. I did no extra studying for images and I never once said to myself "boy I wish I looked at more pictures". If they want you to diagnose AML, they will show Auer rods in up-close, gritty detail. No question will ask you whether or not a cervical biopsy is CIN I, II or III based on a picture.

The heart murmurs were, for the most part, concise and classic. Aortic stenosis will be absolutely silent everywhere except over the aortic region. Mitral regurg will be silent everywhere except over the mitral area. Often times, that's all you need because all the other answer choices won't even be in the right area. I had 4-5 murmur questions on the real deal and only one was like "here's the dude for his physical exam, what's his finding". The rest gave classic clinical vignettes (eg stenosis -> syncope on exertion).

Yes, the exam is difficult, but it's also placed on a pedestal by a lot of medical students. I had an upperclassman tell me that he had like 3 "recall questions" which was a blatant lie. The vast majority of the exam (>250 questions) are either 1-step or 2-step questions.

Good post and I agree with almost everything but I had no idea what the heart sounds were. The vignettes were short and unhelpful but this probably speaks more to my lack of ability than as a reflection of the test
 
Yes, the exam is difficult, but it's also placed on a pedestal by a lot of medical students. I had an upperclassman tell me that he had like 3 "recall questions" which was a blatant lie. The vast majority of the exam (>250 questions) are either 1-step or 2-step questions.

You practically scored a 270, so your perspective is not representative at all. Dermviser's main point is that the test has gotten harder, which is true. For example, on my test, several questions were deliberately tricky, and I thought their purpose was to mislead and had no educational value. I don't recall seeing questions like that in the two NBMEs I took (7 and 12). Those NBMEs were relatively more straightforward than my actual form.
 
You practically scored a 270, so your perspective is not representative at all. Dermviser's main point is that the test has gotten harder, which is true. For example, on my test, several questions were deliberately tricky, and I thought their purpose was to mislead and had no educational value. I don't recall seeing questions like that in the two NBMEs I took (7 and 12). Those NBMEs were relatively more straightforward than my actual form.
The ones who end up scoring 2 standard deviations (260+) above the mean will usually have a much different perspective on how hard the exam actually was. It's not wrong, but I think it can give some people a very false sense of security. The NBME has listed on their website in what ways they've changed the exam and the way the question is asked. Is it impossible? Of course not. In general, the assessment of medical students and physicians (and how they are tested on things) is getting harder and more continuous.
 
All you have to do is look at the old nbmes. There's a very noticeable difference between the early and current forms
 
All you have to do is look at the old nbmes. There's a very noticeable difference between the early and current forms
Now you know why the goal in medical school is try to get out as soon as possible. As things progress, they change things up and make even the first 2 years harder. It seems like it's a way to force medical schools to change their curriculum thru the test itself.

I feel bad for newer med school classes that have to study "quality improvement principles" and "safety science" without having anything in their basic science years addressing this. I fully expect a "High Yield Quality Improvement Principles and Safety Science" book to come out soon.
 
Now you know why the goal in medical school is try to get out as soon as possible. As things progress, they change things up and make even the first 2 years harder. It seems like it's a way to force medical schools to change their curriculum thru the test itself.

I feel bad for newer med school classes that have to study "quality improvement principles" and "safety science" without having anything in their basic science years addressing this. I fully expect a "High Yield Quality Improvement Principles and Safety Science" book to come out soon.
Further, when you take a year off, you just made your score look less impressive, as the average is now higher when you apply.
 
Further, when you take a year off, you just made your score look less impressive, as the average is now higher when you apply.

I imagine it would suck for the MD/PhD student who applies nearly 6 years later, that being said, the PhD can help for matching into certain specialties.
 
Further, when you take a year off, you just made your score look less impressive, as the average is now higher when you apply.

That's an interesting point of view. I never thought about that.
 
Further, when you take a year off, you just made your score look less impressive, as the average is now higher when you apply.

But the pubs/connections you can make during a whole year may be worth more than the 3-4 point score inflation.
 
Top