Same review books, different scores

[RunwayModel]

---

Members don't see this ad.

With everyone using almost the exact same resources, with respect to studying for Step 1 (BRS, Rapid Review, CMMRS, or Kaplan etc.) why is it that people get very different scores (i.e. 218 vs. 240), besides the usual rationalization that the one with the lower score slacked and did not study enough or do enough questions?

Assuming, that a group of students all memorized each review book back and forth why is it that it doesn't necessarily translate to a 240? Is it because the exam is more application, clinical presentation, and concept oriented, rather than direct rote regurgitation of memorized information (like most medical school exams with buzzwords)? Also are the questions integrated in a way that you haven't seen before (unlike shelf exams that tend to test memorized details)? Or is it because the one with the higher score knew a few key facts well (i.e. First Aid) rather than try to learn all seven subjects completely?

It seems like those who did very well on Step 1 also did very well during their basic science courses, and did not use review books only but learned the information well through textbooks (i.e. reading Guyton, Robbins, etc.) and used review books only for summary.'

It would just be helpful for people to know how much these review books are or are not the panacea to boards that many people think, as I'm sure the NBME knows exactly what are in these books and how they're presented, and thus they make test questions that test one step beyond how they are presented in the review book.

Kaplan is a whole another story as I've heard that the Lectures (video or Live) are quite impressive with respect to "teaching" application of information and "knowing" what information is high yield and what is not. If you don't believe me look at the length of GI Physiology in the Lecture Notes vs. a chapter in BRS of GI Physiology. Kaplan says GI Phys is very rarely tested as it is mainly memorization of enzymes/hormones, hence less pages dedicated. Does Kaplan know something that review books don't? Just to make it clear, I do not work for or get anything from Kaplan.

Thanks for reading through this rant.

 

[lankysudanese]

It seems like those who did very well on Step 1 also did very well during their basic science courses, and did not use review books only but learned the information well through textbooks (i.e. reading Guyton, Robbins, etc.) and used review books only for summary.'

i agree. i've always believed that if someone worked really hard during the basic science courses to create a solid knowledge base, they could do very well in Step 1 without having to use any review books or set up "prep time". that being said, there are several accounts (in SDN) of individuals who did not perform well during the basic science years but ended up doing very well in Step 1. I attribute this to the fact that the tests in MS1/MS2 revolve more around minutia and less around "the big picture", unlike Step 1. it could also be b/c these individuals were not motivated during the basic science courses, but put on their A game when it came to Step 1 prep.

also, regarding kaplan. i think that the amount of high yield info presented in kaplan is equivalent to that in the other resources. the difference is that kaplan does a great job of "explaining" the relevance of this info, and correlating it to other "factoids" presented in other sections/subjects. this allows the student to have a broader knowledge base, and to begin to appreciate how different pathways/conditions interact and present. so when the same high yield fact is tested in a novel situation in the real step 1, they will find themselves much more comfortable in teasing the information apart and connecting the dots.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

There is wide variation in the ability and motivation of students to use and apply material. Test taking skill is also important, some students can keep a cool head and excellent pacing throughout while some miss 3 questions a row and start panicking until the rest of the test is a roller coaster.

 

[alpha06]

Assuming, that a group of students all memorized each review book back and forth why is it that it doesn't necessarily translate to a 240? Is it because the exam is more application, clinical presentation, and concept oriented, rather than direct rote regurgitation of memorized information (like most medical school exams with buzzwords)? Also are the questions integrated in a way that you haven't seen before (unlike shelf exams that tend to test memorized details)? Or is it because the one with the higher score knew a few key facts well (i.e. First Aid) rather than try to learn all seven subjects completely?

It seems like those who did very well on Step 1 also did very well during their basic science courses, and did not use review books only but learned the information well through textbooks (i.e. reading Guyton, Robbins, etc.) and used review books only for summary.'

I believe this is an interesting concept.

I don't believe that if you put a group of med students together and they memorized certain review books cover-to-cover, that they would not get the same score.

I think having great test-taking skills is a valuable resource as well as being able to integrate the information you have aquired through reading/studying is also very important.

This is where, I believe, Kaplan comes in handy because they really try to focus on these two areas. They make points on how you can become better test-takers and they also integrate the basic science information into their review books. And based on your previous background as an MSI or II (meaning if you slacked off or did exceptionally well), your review of the information will reflect that. The better you did, the less you have to work at studying the material. And if you slacked off, you're going to be in a great deal of trouble trying to study for the boards.