People who know their stuff and get good grades vs. people who don't and get honors

[basupran]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I was curious as to why people think this is. It doesn't make sense, but I think it has something to do with lateral thinking. Anyone have any experience with this? What happens to the less-knowledgable but higher scoring folk come residency time?

 

[AlternateSome1]

I was curious as to why people think this is. It doesn't make sense, but I think it has something to do with lateral thinking. Anyone have any experience with this? What happens to the less-knowledgable but higher scoring folk come residency time?

Sounds pretentious. Why do you think you know more than people who score higher than you?

 

[basupran]

Sounds pretentious. Why do you think you know more than people who score higher than you?

I am about average and I don't know everything (this thread isn't about me). I have had friends complain about this, so I started wondering. People who knew less than them scored higher, so I tried to console them along the lines of 'you will do better in clinical years bc you know more'. I wanted to hear about other ppls experiences.

 

[pharmer]

I don't think the poster sounds pretentious at all and I agree with him or her. I'm a perfect example I think. I get great grades (top of class) but I don't feel like I know anything. I have friends who get good grades (after putting in the same amount of time) but not all A's (or honors) that I feel have a far better grasp of a subject matter than I, but for some reason their test score don't show it. Plus these people seem to remember things for a much longer time removed from the testing period on that subject matter too. I think they will shine on the floors where "how good of a test taker you are" doesn't matter as much.

 

[Paws]

I think this sounds like me - 🙂

I work really hard, and long hours and end up doing ok but no honors. The first block I barely passed. I have friends who get 100% on their exams, but don't remember the material the next day. We have talked about it to each other, and I guess I am happy with my middle of the road scores (sometimes up, sometimes down) because I am a curious person and really want to understand the material. A few of my friends are concerned about the boards, because baby, that's a huge amount of information to just memorize.

Some of my classmates don't have any interest in the material other than as some strange form of hieroglyphics to be memorized. The don't do anything other than just memorize the lecture notes. Period. I might read other sources, check the internet or look in a book for more information. Everyone's different I guess.

As for clinical stuff, well I am hoping that I do well there, as I really like it a ton,

 

[Whisker Barrel Cortex]

This phenomenon does exist, but don't expect it to change greatly in third year. Shining on the wards has less to do with your knowledge base than it does with your willingness to work hard, personality, and ability to work with others. It is a totally different skill set than what you learn in the first two years.

 

[thackl]

That's totally me. It's called 1.) Test taking skills 2.) Understanding (not memorizing) and 3.) Intuitive thinking

Most tests at my school involve 2nd and 3rd order use of information, thus you must understand. There are also a number of Q's that force you make use of 'new' info or make inferences related to clinical information. Sometimes we get tests based on pure memorization. Generally these cover ureasonable amounts of info (IMHO) and really suck (for me). Surprise, surprise...... these are the ones that bring the averages up. Hell, I barely beat the ave on these. I personally believe pre-med is crippling since all you really learn how to do is memorize. The lib arts and engineers seem to do really well with less effort. I'm convinced it's critical thinking skills.

As for 3rd yr, I'm told the hard workers (that also have personalities) will do well. The 'less knowlegabe but higher scoring folk' will continue to bring that intuitive side, but I suspect they will struggle with recall and details.

 

[DarksideAllstar]

I've pondered this myself. I generally feel like a have a decent grasp of most of the material that I have been exposed to up until this point (end of MSIII), but sometimes I feel like I focus so much on the minutia that I miss the bigger picture. Unfortunately, the pimping during third year has really reinforced learning the minutia re: a disease process. I have done well on the shelf exams and Step I, which makes me feel pretty good about whether or not I know the material, but I have this pervasive feeling that I have a very limited amount of knowledge on the wards (maybe I compare myself to the residents too much?). I have honored most of my courses and rotations, but feel somewhat disappointed that I cant rattle off some of the clinical presentations of relatively common disease processes (but I can tell you what goes wrong). 😕

 

[thackl]

but feel somewhat disappointed that I cant rattle off some of the clinical presentations of relatively common disease processes (but I can tell you what goes wrong). 😕

yep, it pisses me off how quickly I forget this stuff, even when it's very interesting and I really know it. Pretty much the norm though. It becomes 2nd nature during residency.

 

[DarksideAllstar]

yep, it pisses me off how quickly I forget this stuff, even when it's very interesting and I really know it. Pretty much the norm though. It becomes 2nd nature during residency.

Here's to hoping that information will stick for longer than 1-2 weeks at some point in our training.

 

[ice_23]

I was curious as to why people think this is. It doesn't make sense, but I think it has something to do with lateral thinking. Anyone have any experience with this? What happens to the less-knowledgable but higher scoring folk come residency time?

Test taking ability. That's pretty much the difference in the first two years. Plus, the first two years are essentially rote memorization. So if you take tests well and don't need to work as long to remember stuff in the short run, you'll do "well" without "knowing" as much.

But don't presume that these people who are "less-knowledgeable" will be nailed during third year. It seems like they know how to play the game well, whatever that game may be.

-Ice

 

[quideam]

I definetely hear what the OP is saying. At my school, any normal, relatively straight-forward test tends to get averages in the low 90's, so our professors love to give off-the-wall, super-nitpicky, extra-detailed questions. Also, our tests are actually "quizzes" in that we get them once every week or two and they tend to have around 25-35 questions. So, that being said, it's easy to see how the difference between honors and average could literally be two or three questions, which says absolutely nothing about how well you know the material. I really do think that it comes down to 1) the desire to memorize every bit of minutia in the notes; 2) good test-taking (and guessing) abilities; and 3) luck.

This is why I think that there must be some better way to grade us. Short answer questions maybe? I don't know. After my experience this year though, i'm pretty much convinced that who gets honors is almost arbitrary. (at least at my school).

Quid

 

[THP]

I'm gonna have to agree with thackl. I tend to get honors on most exams except for the ones that involve straight memorization, which is not very many of them. Example, I got the average score on the infectious diseases block because that is solely memorizing pathogens.

Most of the other exams I read the section in the text book and understand the concept and I can generally figure out the answer to test questions when I see them. I do very well this way, and this is how most of our exams are.

I disagree with all the upperclassmen who say getting the book is a waste of time and money. I find it to be the most useful way to study.

 

[idq1i]

I have found that the best way to become a part of the former group during the first 2 years is to study backwards - read a medicine textbook (ie Cecil), understand the concept, and then proceed to your basic science readings.

Doing this has allowed me to consistently score +1-2 SD on most of my exams (save for behavioral - worst subject I have ever had to study for)

 

[ears]

Test taking ability. That's pretty much the difference in the first two years. Plus, the first two years are essentially rote memorization. So if you take tests well and don't need to work as long to remember stuff in the short run, you'll do "well" without "knowing" as much.

But don't presume that these people who are "less-knowledgeable" will be nailed during third year. It seems like they know how to play the game well, whatever that game may be.

-Ice

It's true, grades in the first two years are a game where good scores go to good test-takers.

In the clinical years, the game changes a lot; some people who were not very good at the basic science game will be good at the clinical game, and vice versa. Some people are just good at figuring out what the game is, and playing it; they know how to score points whatever it is they're doing.

But don't lose perspective; it's still just a game. There are definitely rewards for those who play it well, but getting good grades is not the same as becoming a good physician. (Ideally, it would be, right? But there's still a big gap between that ideal and reality.)

And the real challenge of medical education from a student's perspective is figuring out, first, "What is a good doctor?" and second, "How do I become one?" I don't think most med schools are very good at helping students answer these questions.

 

[DarksideAllstar]

Some people are just good at figuring out what the game is, and playing it; they know how to score points whatever it is they're doing.

Bingo.

Playing the game + doing well on the shelf = H

Well, at least in my case.

 

[coxzilla97]

I have always been intrigued and sometimes frustrated by how test scores turn out either for myself or for others. Many times it is obvious that I know more than another student going into a test (study sessions, in class discussions, me helping them with their problems, etc.) But generally I always get a 92%, no matter how much I study or how little, to a point of course. Well, after many years of school I think that it has to due with the Yerks Dodson Law/phenomenon. Many of you are familiar with it but it basically says that anxiety and performace are intrically related. Too little anxiety bad performance. Too much anxiety bad performance yet again. But just the right amount of anxiety and you will maximize your performance. So even those those other folks don't know as much, they must have the better curve than me on the test. My problem is to much anxiety. My last semester in undergrad was going like hell until I got accepted to med school. I stopped caring about getting all A's and my averages shot up at least 10% and I didnt study more than an hour for each exam.

 

[tupac_don]

I definetely hear what the OP is saying. At my school, any normal, relatively straight-forward test tends to get averages in the low 90's, so our professors love to give off-the-wall, super-nitpicky, extra-detailed questions. Also, our tests are actually "quizzes" in that we get them once every week or two and they tend to have around 25-35 questions. So, that being said, it's easy to see how the difference between honors and average could literally be two or three questions, which says absolutely nothing about how well you know the material. I really do think that it comes down to 1) the desire to memorize every bit of minutia in the notes; 2) good test-taking (and guessing) abilities; and 3) luck.

This is why I think that there must be some better way to grade us. Short answer questions maybe? I don't know. After my experience this year though, i'm pretty much convinced that who gets honors is almost arbitrary. (at least at my school).

Quid

What it takes is to approach test taking strategically and to study for a grade. You should study your professor to know his type and the q he/she tends to ask. Always have old tests available to compare what type of q were given in the past years. Attend lectures and if you can pay attn in the lectures themselves I find they tell you everything in lectures. Know the minutae and repeat and go over the material ad nauseum. All it takes pretty much is dedication, persistence, dedication and more persistence. It is not really an issue of intelligence. But on that note, I beleive that hard work is just as imp as intelligence. For instance someone who is a hard worker and reasonably intelligent can very well outperform someone who might have arbitratily superior intellect. Particularly in medicine I think hard work and stamina and good deal of common sense and even ability to get along with others are all factors that might be as and even more imp than just innate intelligence. Just remember that saying it's 1% inspiration and 99% prespiration.

 

[nala]

What it takes is to approach test taking strategically and to study for a grade. You should study your professor to know his type and the q he/she tends to ask. Always have old tests available to compare what type of q were given in the past years. Attend lectures and if you can pay attn in the lectures themselves I find they tell you everything in lectures. Know the minutae and repeat and go over the material ad nauseum. All it takes pretty much is dedication, persistence, dedication and more persistence.

This is very good advice but can be hard to do depending on the situation. If you do not have access to any old tests it's hard to gauge the kinds of questions that are asked. Also if you only have each professor for 1-2 lectures it can sometimes be hard to figure out their questions.

 

[tupac_don]

This is very good advice but can be hard to do depending on the situation. If you do not have access to any old tests it's hard to gauge the kinds of questions that are asked. Also if you only have each professor for 1-2 lectures it can sometimes be hard to figure out their questions.

True, I agree, that is a drawback at times. However, if you approach it like a job and if you are persistent you will find those tests. I mean you have to network and get those tests. You have to have a mindset that not getting old tests is not an option. As far as having lecturers one to two per lecture, that's a little harder to overcome. But a lot of the times you just have to go to lecture and pay attn to details as much as possible and talk to other people who had that lecturer before. In the end if you approach studying like pro athletes approach their training or very successful individuals in any avenue for that matter you will be successful. And that's the bottom line.

 

[YouDontKnowJack]

i really don't give a **** about the phenomenon that is discussed in this thread. My memory sucks. I can't memorize random crap as easily as most of my classmates, so they tend to get better grades than I do, especially when the teacher tests on the random obscure crap.

my strategy from day 1 was to just bust out the review books. i don't care if i get higher or lower grades, as long as it's at least a B. i'm just sticking to the big picture and what is laid out in the review books, and hopefully I'll nail step 1.

 

[callendm]

I would much rather be on Pass/Fail than the Pass/Marginal Pass/High Pass/Honors that is no more than a "glorified" letter grading system. Luckily my school is low on the "gunner" side or things may get a little conterproductive. Basically, your grade is totally based on Sd's for most classes and that is really unneeded pressure.

Is there really anything different between where one lies in some small range of scores? No. For example, an easy class may have a mean of 87 (honors =1.1 SD above the mean...this comes out to 10% of the class). Say the class with the 87 would also probably have a low SD. That sets honors at just barely over a 90. With a 40 question test that difference is just one or two questions! It may all come down to spending 30 extra hours for the possibility to get two more questions correct and the holy grail "honors". I'd much rather spend that time with a significant other or enjoying life.

Does such a small difference indicate one to be that much better than someone else? No...some are just great test takers that can simple get those two or three extra questions correct. I have plenty of friends who REALLY REALLY know their stuff just to sike themselves out during tests. Other people have photographic memories (and I'll leave that one at that). I am not ranting and raving about a system out of spite. I have actually gotten really "lucky" my first year but really don't see the point. I was lucky enough to pull honors in 5/8 classes, missed honors by just one question in two classes, and one high pass. Did I do that much "worse" in the two classes I missed honors by just 0.1%, NO? The problem is trying to qualify a cut-off that is really not there. In the end I just get lucky when I take certain multiple choice exams. That is it. It all evens out in the end during boards/rotation (annoyingly I knew the most for the class I did the worst in!)

 

[nala]

True, I agree, that is a drawback at times. However, if you approach it like a job and if you are persistent you will find those tests. I mean you have to network and get those tests. You have to have a mindset that not getting old tests is not an option. As far as having lecturers one to two per lecture, that's a little harder to overcome. But a lot of the times you just have to go to lecture and pay attn to details as much as possible and talk to other people who had that lecturer before. In the end if you approach studying like pro athletes approach their training or very successful individuals in any avenue for that matter you will be successful. And that's the bottom line.

I should have clarified - I go to a school where we sign our exams and turn them back in - everything is numbered. It's a violation to have an old exam and you can get kicked out after 1 offense. We have a few classes that make an exception and provides the exam from the previous year, but that's it. I agree with the lecture-attending advice. That's the only way to go when you have so many different teaching styles.
Anyway, let's not get this thread too off-topic

 

[ice_23]

Although I do think that if I had to choose between having tests or being a sycophant (i.e. during clinical rotations) as two possible criterion for determining honors, I'd choose the former as a better measuring tool.

-Ice

 

[fun8stuff]

I don't think the poster sounds pretentious at all and I agree with him or her. I'm a perfect example I think. I get great grades (top of class) but I don't feel like I know anything. I have friends who get good grades (after putting in the same amount of time) but not all A's (or honors) that I feel have a far better grasp of a subject matter than I, but for some reason their test score don't show it. Plus these people seem to remember things for a much longer time removed from the testing period on that subject matter too. I think they will shine on the floors where "how good of a test taker you are" doesn't matter as much.

perhaps the more intelligent you are, the more you realize that you don't know? i know people that are really good at pretending they know the material, but in actuallity they dont know it as well as they put on.. of course, like you said it definately takes a certain skill to take a test....