Radiology step 1 average 2016

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Obama123

Obama123

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
26
Reaction score
3
Points
4,571
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Hey,

I can only find data about those that matched in 2014 ~241. I was wondering if anyone has found new data for the 2015 and 2016 match step 1 average for rads.

Thanks
 
I am curious too...also curious to see if Rads will trend down to high 230s as it splits off from IR.
 
postbacpremed87 said:
I am curious too...also curious to see if Rads will trend down to high 230s as it splits off from IR.
Click to expand...

doubt it. You have to remember that average Step 1 scores are increasing in general. Average overall is now around 230.
 
qwerty89 said:
doubt it. You have to remember that average Step 1 scores are increasing in general. Average overall is now around 230.
Click to expand...
Step 1 averages have been 227-230 for >4 years.
 
...
 
Last edited:
KenithNosewater said:
Source is my own score report that gives the data. Also, your data shows for the past 3 years. Not ">4 years".
Click to expand...

I Agree. My score report from my 2016 Exam (this past june) reports 229 as the average with an std of 21.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Hemorrage said:
I Agree. My score report from my 2016 Exam (this past june) reports 229 as the average with an std of 21.
Click to expand...

I took it in May 2013 and average was 227 if I recall correctly
 
For those confused by the above posts, most are referring to the NATION-WIDE Step 1 average scores.

The OP's question asks about the Radiology Step 1 averages, which are typically around 240-242.

Cognovi is right, the updated Radiology Step 1 average should be released next month. They're typically released every 2 years by the NRMP Charting Outcomes in the Match. The last was released in 2014 with an average of 241.

Cognovi said:
It'll be out this September.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
g8orlife said:
They're typically released every 2 years by the NBME Charting Outcomes in the Match. The last was released in 2014 with an average of 241.
Click to expand...

They're released by the NRMP. The NBME stopped cooperating with the report, which is why there was a gap between the 2011 and 2014 editions. Now the scores are self-reported by applicants and verified by schools.
 
I think the average step 1 for rads will still be around ~240. Applicants are still quite self-selecting. I am amazed that despite ~1000 spots, the rads average is that high.
 
GadRads said:
I think the average step 1 for rads will still be around ~240. Applicants are still quite self-selecting. I am amazed that despite ~1000 spots, the rads average is that high.
Click to expand...

This has always amazed me too and most people don't realize this fact. Everyone talks about the other 240+ avg fields but they all have way less spots.
 
It's probably because both radiology and studying/taking Step exams involves staring at computer screens for hours on end while maintaining concentration.

Except of course the pressure of liability in actual radiology...
 
Cognovi said:
They're released by the NRMP. The NBME stopped cooperating with the report, which is why there was a gap between the 2011 and 2014 editions. Now the scores are self-reported by applicants and verified by schools.
Click to expand...

You're right. I corrected that. Thanks
 
.
 
Last edited:
DOFOSHO said:
DO students, already taken comlex step 2, many programs "require"/"don't require" usmle step 2 CK. how important is this test as a DO and when is the latest I can take it in order for it to be factored in to how the program ranks me. thanks.
Click to expand...
I'm a DO student who matched at decent university program last year. Definitely take step 2CK. You should shoot to beat your step 1 score by 10 points or so. I took it in July before ERAS. Just take it ASAP, especially if you have some chill rotations. I'm not sure how much step 2CK scores matter for rank lists. Good luck!
 
Voodoo Chile said:
I'm a DO student who matched at decent university program last year. Definitely take step 2CK. You should shoot to beat your step 1 score by 10 points or so. I took it in July before ERAS. Just take it ASAP, especially if you have some chill rotations. I'm not sure how much step 2CK scores matter for rank lists. Good luck!
Click to expand...

Mind if I PM you with some questions?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
redoitall said:
Yep the charting outcome for 2016 still shows Radiology average step 1 score of 240 (for the 600+ US allopathic MD schools vs 221 average for the 9 US allopathic MD students who didn't match). What is great is that with a 220 chances to match are 95% (again for students from MD schools). Link to the PDF report provided. See page 51 of the PDF.
http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Charting-Outcomes-US-Allopathic-Seniors-2016.pdf
http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Charting-Outcomes-US-Allopathic-Seniors-2016.pdf
Click to expand...

Remarkable self-selection is going on when the match rate for US MD seniors is 98% and the Step 1 average is higher than vascular surgery.
 
redoitall said:
Yep the charting outcome for 2016 still shows Radiology average step 1 score of 240 (for the 600+ US allopathic MD schools vs 221 average for the 9 US allopathic MD students who didn't match). What is great is that with a 220 chances to match are 95% (again for students from MD schools). Link to the PDF report provided. See page 51 of the PDF.
http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Charting-Outcomes-US-Allopathic-Seniors-2016.pdf
http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Charting-Outcomes-US-Allopathic-Seniors-2016.pdf
Click to expand...

It went down from 241 to 240! Ha
 
Cognovi said:
Remarkable self-selection is going on when the match rate for US MD seniors is 98% and the Step 1 average is higher than vascular surgery.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think that also shows that top-tier rads programs are as competitive as any field. Rads is the only field with 240+ average that has a lot of low-end programs. There's also significantly more spots than other competitive fields. I would be willing to bet that IR may end up being the highest/most competitive in the next "Charting Match Outcomes."
 
ya I was surprised by the vascular too. I thought integrated vascular was so hard to get into? or is it because of like research and connection stuff
 
PL198 said:
ya I was surprised by the vascular too. I thought integrated vascular was so hard to get into? or is it because of like research and connection stuff
Click to expand...

I'm not totally sure but I would be willing to bet that most people are doing IR or interventional cardiology instead of vascular surgery these days. A lot of open vascular procedures just aren't done anymore or not done as much as they used to be. This is just my guess though.
 
PL198 said:
ya I was surprised by the vascular too. I thought integrated vascular was so hard to get into? or is it because of like research and connection stuff
Click to expand...

A lot of people shy away from "integrated" vascular, because they don't know how to do basic surgical procedures. A lot of surgeons want to be able to do the general surgery stuff first, then specialize.
 
From interviewing candidates last year and sitting in insider admissions meetings, I can tell you that at top programs, 240 is needed just to get your fit in the door.

250s is good. 260s is very good. 270s is impressive.

It does not seem much different than when I interviewed years ago.
 
Dr. USMLE said:
From interviewing candidates last year and sitting in insider admissions meetings, I can tell you that at top programs, 240 is needed just to get your fit in the door.

250s is good. 260s is very good. 270s is impressive.

It does not seem much different than when I interviewed years ago.
Click to expand...

You can match at top programs with 240's, even in rad onc. I would bet the average at top programs is ~250.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
250 back when i was in med school is like a the 260 now. Inflation. I heard like 15 yeaes ago, a 230 was considered super baller.
 
meister said:
270s is "hmm I wonder if this guy's got an underlying personality disorder..."
Click to expand...

This is just one person's opinion, but as someone who interviews and makes decisions on candidates, I put a low priority on step scores. There is a score screen, which I have no control over, but after that I don't care much.

It bears repeating, I have not seen a very tight correlation between step scores and actual radiology skill/capability, especially the further out one is from R1 year. My goal in "drafting" residents is to get individuals who would make the institution proud. Graduates of whom you would say to a colleague "X is a really sharp radiologist" and then immediately follow it up with the thought, "Makes sense, they trained at Y." This doesn't correlate with step scores, IMO, and I find it a tough thing to judge from a cv and one interview. Instead of scores, I rely more on LORs from people I know, the interview, and, believe it or not, genuine extracurriculars. I'm looking for lovers of knowledge and self-motivators. These people tend not to be self-important or cynical. Constructed CVs and cramming for a one day test have gotten some people in the door who did not turn out to be a credit to the group, or really should have been somewhere else.

This is just one opinion, though. Some programs are pure number sluts, and I think they pay for it eventually, indirectly. Radiology is not what a lot of medical students think it is, and one needs a strong sense of humility and infinite self-motivation to be the best. I could care less about a one day test unless it's a couple of std Dev below the mean.
 
Gadofosveset said:
This is just one person's opinion, but as someone who interviews and makes decisions on candidates, I put a low priority on step scores. There is a score screen, which I have no control over, but after that I don't care much.

It bears repeating, I have not seen a very tight correlation between step scores and actual radiology skill/capability, especially the further out one is from R1 year. My goal in "drafting" residents is to get individuals who would make the institution proud. Graduates of whom you would say to a colleague "X is a really sharp radiologist" and then immediately follow it up with the thought, "Makes sense, they trained at Y." This doesn't correlate with step scores, IMO, and I find it a tough thing to judge from a cv and one interview. Instead of scores, I rely more on LORs from people I know, the interview, and, believe it or not, genuine extracurriculars. I'm looking for lovers of knowledge and self-motivators. These people tend not to be self-important or cynical. Constructed CVs and cramming for a one day test have gotten some people in the door who did not turn out to be a credit to the group, or really should have been somewhere else.

This is just one opinion, though. Some programs are pure number sluts, and I think they pay for it eventually, indirectly. Radiology is not what a lot of medical students think it is, and one needs a strong sense of humility and infinite self-motivation to be the best. I could care less about a one day test unless it's a couple of std Dev below the mean.
Click to expand...

didn't you say you were at a pretty big name program tho? I doubt your program is interviewing people with step 1 avg below rads avg
 
There's a score screen which I don't control. I'm guessing it's somewhere between 0.5-1.0 std Dev below the mean, but I haven't looked into it that closely. There are a whole range of scores that I basically ignore. We have matched people below the mean rads score, which upset some people on the committee, but (knock on wood) they'be turned out to be solid citizens. I choose not to remind committee members about their prize 270s who have shown themselves to be very weak except in their one little area of interest.
 
Gadofosveset said:
This is just one person's opinion, but as someone who interviews and makes decisions on candidates, I put a low priority on step scores. There is a score screen, which I have no control over, but after that I don't care much.

It bears repeating, I have not seen a very tight correlation between step scores and actual radiology skill/capability, especially the further out one is from R1 year. My goal in "drafting" residents is to get individuals who would make the institution proud. Graduates of whom you would say to a colleague "X is a really sharp radiologist" and then immediately follow it up with the thought, "Makes sense, they trained at Y." This doesn't correlate with step scores, IMO, and I find it a tough thing to judge from a cv and one interview. Instead of scores, I rely more on LORs from people I know, the interview, and, believe it or not, genuine extracurriculars. I'm looking for lovers of knowledge and self-motivators. These people tend not to be self-important or cynical. Constructed CVs and cramming for a one day test have gotten some people in the door who did not turn out to be a credit to the group, or really should have been somewhere else.

This is just one opinion, though. Some programs are pure number sluts, and I think they pay for it eventually, indirectly. Radiology is not what a lot of medical students think it is, and one needs a strong sense of humility and infinite self-motivation to be the best. I could care less about a one day test unless it's a couple of std Dev below the mean.
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective. Do you mind my asking if you are the program director?

A lot of PDs (mine included) and committee members feel that letters do not do a great job at differentiating applicants. At the top programs, almost every candidate has glowing letters with ideal 'code words.'

It is of course different if you know the letter writer and can call them for more information, but practically speaking letters from diagnostic radiologists are not all that revealing at the medical student level. IR letters can give some insight into clinical abilities, but I have found are also not that helpful in differentiating applicants.

You mention "cramming for a one day test." Do you also not value class rank, AOA status, clinical honors, consistent scores across step 1 and step 2 (possibly even step 3 for IMGs)? Also, what do you mean by "constructed CVs?" People making stuff up or using editing services?
 
This is purely anecdotal but as far as USMLE scores correlating with resident/medical student abilities I definitely think they correlate up until a point. There seems to be a reversal in ability around 260ish where those students show a bit less ability than those in the 240-250 range. Although there's definitely a huge difference between 240 and 220 students/residents and 240 to 200 might as well be a different field 😛

I think there is some advantage to the "staying hungry" mentality and complacency is a true killer.
 
Dr. USMLE said:
Interesting perspective...
Click to expand...

I am not the program director (thank God).

The way I see LORs are: if it's someone I know (and trust), then +++, otherwise neutral, but a negative LOR is -- (not ---, because sometimes negative LORs are no fault of the applicant, who may have been blindsided. I reserve some doubt if it's discordant with the rest of the application. Frankly, LORs are often so ridiculous than I can barely recognize the applicant, so I usually discount them.

To my mind all of these numbers and ranks are nothing but proxies. They have no value in themselves. A high step score does not mean you will offer value at a tumor board in ten years' time, nor does it ensure that one will maintain one's knowledge base or make ethical decisions. It won't predict that you become the go-to person in your group. These qualities are hard, if not impossible to predict, but they're what is really valuable (IMO). I think taking proxies too seriously is kind of a lazy way out. I understand their use as a screening tool because I don't want to review two hundred applications, but that's their only use for me.

What I want is someone with: 1) a good work ethic, 2) a good attitude, 3) a commitment to learning and knowledge (goes with humility), 4) a good team player and communicator, and 5) a professional.
Step scores are supposed to help with (1) and (3), but in my limited experience, their predictive value have failed on numerous occasions. As you point out, AOA and class rank are better proxies for (1) and (3). A consistent application is in line with 1, 3, and 5. Clinical honors is a weak indicator to my mind - too easily gamed and good future doctors can get blindsided by a poor clinical grade or two. A perfect set of honors in the clinical years smells like bs to me. Extracurriculars that show commitment and professionalism impress me (1, 2, 4, and 5), "constructed" CVs with numerous "leadership" positions in numerous interest clubs do not. Actual interest and commitment to research or dedication to an allied area (e.g. informatics) impresses me, a dozen publications in ten different disciplines do not.

Some of the best radiologists working today may not have been able to make it into radiology residency if they were to apply again. I always remember this. There's something else that sets these experts apart and it's not a test score. It's a commitment to learning and professionalism when there are no grades and there is no test coming up. It's a commitment to going the extra mile when it can't be marketed on a CV as an extracurricular. How do I find good proxies for that?
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Again, this is only one person's opinion (although I'm pretty sure I'm not alone). There is heterogeneity in admissions boards. There is no shortage of people who have the mentality "get all the highest scoring med students and it will all work itself out." Personally, I disagree. As an applicant you will probably quickly get an idea of the program's culture at the interview.
 
PL198 said:
ya I was surprised by the vascular too. I thought integrated vascular was so hard to get into? or is it because of like research and connection stuff
Click to expand...

Cubsfan10 said:
I'm not totally sure but I would be willing to bet that most people are doing IR or interventional cardiology instead of vascular surgery these days. A lot of open vascular procedures just aren't done anymore or not done as much as they used to be. This is just my guess though.
Click to expand...

VS_comp.png


We had 200+ applications last year for 2 spots. Not exactly hurting for people interested in training in vascular surgery. As with many specialties, the bottleneck is in training spots, not interest.

tco said:
A lot of people shy away from "integrated" vascular, because they don't know how to do basic surgical procedures. A lot of surgeons want to be able to do the general surgery stuff first, then specialize.
Click to expand...

Conservatively, I have met with or know 200 vascular surgery trainees and faculty from across the US. I can count on one hand the number that think that traditional training is a superior pathway to integrated. All of them are over the age of 50 and also think that if you aren't averaging ~110 hrs/week, you aren't training enough. I have yet to meet a student wanting to go into vascular that is seriously considering GS over IVS. It makes zero sense to do general surgery first if you know anything about how residencies are structured and the skills acquired at various levels.
 
mimelim said:
VS_comp.png


We had 200+ applications last year for 2 spots. Not exactly hurting for people interested in training in vascular surgery. As with many specialties, the bottleneck is in training spots, not interest.



Conservatively, I have met with or know 200 vascular surgery trainees and faculty from across the US. I can count on one hand the number that think that traditional training is a superior pathway to integrated. All of them are over the age of 50 and also think that if you aren't averaging ~110 hrs/week, you aren't training enough. I have yet to meet a student wanting to go into vascular that is seriously considering GS over IVS. It makes zero sense to do general surgery first if you know anything about how residencies are structured and the skills acquired at various levels.
Click to expand...

which is hilarious to me because when the dinosaurs were doing their 110 hr BS, they were twiddling their thumbs half the time. 80 hr residents do more now than 110 did back in the day easy
 
Just a lowly medical student here but I want to point out that we do have some objective data to go by. Only 30 people in the entire nation that applied to rads had a step score >260. So the idea that only a 260+ will make head turns is kind of crazy. Radiology has a self-selecting group of applicants that tend to do pretty well on boards, but I just want to remind those of us applying in the next year or two that radiology has fallen in competitiveness dramatically. Maybe the top programs are still averaging 250+, but to think that if you have a 235 you can't match or something is ridiculous (only 9 people nationwide didn't match last year, with any step score).
http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Charting-Outcomes-US-Allopathic-Seniors-2016.pdf
http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Charting-Outcomes-US-Allopathic-Seniors-2016.pdf
 
Gadofosveset said:
I am not the program director (thank God).

The way I see LORs are: if it's someone I know (and trust), then +++, otherwise neutral, but a negative LOR is -- (not ---, because sometimes negative LORs are no fault of the applicant, who may have been blindsided. I reserve some doubt if it's discordant with the rest of the application. Frankly, LORs are often so ridiculous than I can barely recognize the applicant, so I usually discount them.

To my mind all of these numbers and ranks are nothing but proxies. They have no value in themselves. A high step score does not mean you will offer value at a tumor board in ten years' time, nor does it ensure that one will maintain one's knowledge base or make ethical decisions. It won't predict that you become the go-to person in your group. These qualities are hard, if not impossible to predict, but they're what is really valuable (IMO). I think taking proxies too seriously is kind of a lazy way out. I understand their use as a screening tool because I don't want to review two hundred applications, but that's their only use for me.

What I want is someone with: 1) a good work ethic, 2) a good attitude, 3) a commitment to learning and knowledge (goes with humility), 4) a good team player and communicator, and 5) a professional.
Step scores are supposed to help with (1) and (3), but in my limited experience, their predictive value have failed on numerous occasions. As you point out, AOA and class rank are better proxies for (1) and (3). A consistent application is in line with 1, 3, and 5. Clinical honors is a weak indicator to my mind - too easily gamed and good future doctors can get blindsided by a poor clinical grade or two. A perfect set of honors in the clinical years smells like bs to me. Extracurriculars that show commitment and professionalism impress me (1, 2, 4, and 5), "constructed" CVs with numerous "leadership" positions in numerous interest clubs do not. Actual interest and commitment to research or dedication to an allied area (e.g. informatics) impresses me, a dozen publications in ten different disciplines do not.

Some of the best radiologists working today may not have been able to make it into radiology residency if they were to apply again. I always remember this. There's something else that sets these experts apart and it's not a test score. It's a commitment to learning and professionalism when there are no grades and there is no test coming up. It's a commitment to going the extra mile when it can't be marketed on a CV as an extracurricular. How do I find good proxies for that?
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective. Not sure why perfect set of honors in clinical years is bs. At my school, only two people got straight honors and they are straight up rockstars. Just n=1 med school experience.

Interested to hear what you think of Gold Humanism Membership. AOA can be political at some schools, but at my school, Gold is voted on by fellow students, so even if those 'certain' students fool the attendings or what not, us fellow students can see through all that, and in our case, I think the Gold Humanism society members will probably be the "go to" people in their specialty, primarily because they've already demonstrated they can garner respect from their peers.
 
I have to second the sentiment that Step 1 scores are not nearly as important as medical students think. It was not long ago that I also was a medical student who thought that only the Step 1 score mattered for your application. I am now a chief resident at a higher end academic center, and am intimately involved in the selection process. The truth about the process is that it is very subjective. So many variables come into play. I can honestly say no application will make you bulletproof to getting pushed down to the bottom of the list if you rub someone the wrong way, including the program director, residents, or the program coordinator. Many medical students would be quite shocked that we put a 220 step 1 applicant over a 260 applicant because we felt he would be a better fit for our program. Our thought process is that we want to select residents who would fit in well and be happy, because we are depending on them to take call and represent our program once they finish. Many people with a "perfect" application often feel they deserve to go wherever they want, and you can easily sense this during the interview.

As far as Step 1 scores predicting your ability as a radiologist, there is almost no correlation. We have had 260 step1 residents with poor work ethic and attitude problems. We have had 210! step1 residents who are dedicated and reliable, the type of people you can trust to take call at night and not !@#$ something up.

I scored 244 on my Step 1, which was pretty good but not outstanding at the time, I studied my butt off for that exam. I was in the 95th+ percentile on the core exam and 99th percentile on the physics section, so even when it comes to standardized testing there is not great correlation. Your knowledge of what aspergillosis looks like on a microscope and memorization of pediatric developmental milestones does not well correlate with your ability to understand MR physics, learn intricate neuroanatomy, and manage of breast lesions...
 
As an older, non-traditional applicant with a low Step 1 score (but I scored 27 points higher on step 2) this thread definitely makes me feel better about matching!
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WildWing
FAQ - Radiology
Replies
2
Views
4K
guytakingboards
G
M
Neurointerventional Radiology
2
Replies
52
Views
14K
irwarrior
I
H
Matching radiology without step 1?
Replies
5
Views
3K
redalert
R
FredddRickkk
PP radiology job offers
Replies
5
Views
6K
NDcienporciento100
N
C
Competitiveness of Radiology Fellowships
Replies
14
Views
13K
MadRadLad
M
Top Bottom