Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
What I'm referring to requires a lot of retrospective data to build a model, which Dell doesn't yet have.
School Average Step 1 vs USNWR Rank
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
What I'm referring to requires a lot of retrospective data to build a model, which Dell doesn't yet have.
Dell is doing the preclinical bit in 12 months, then clerkships in M2, then Step 1. It's modified Duke.
I'm glad I could hep a little bit. Like I said, the best thing to do is decide which of those things are important to you. If being happy and coming out of school with minimal debt is important than Arizona seems like a good bet but if being with family in the east coast is more important than I think that's probably the choice. You just have to sit down and think unbiasedly of exactly what you want and makes you happy. If you're happy where you are, everything else will seem much more enjoyable regardless of what challenges will arise. Best of luck man.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
How do you feel about 18 month vs traditional?
Con you pay more, Pro....
Also EBL? not sure what that acronym means
Lastly, instructor written exams < Step 1 based exams, or am I missing something
I think 18 months is great.you want the preclinical outofthe way as quickly as possible. You end up paying the same either way. The downside is usually the 18 month and less usually have stuff like tbl /pbl/cbl or someother bl that makes it difficult to compare head-on.
I think I meant some of the other bl's. And made a typo.
I chose traditional and no mandatory class attendance because I prefer hands off. Vs the tbl/mandatory attendance of my other options. but this is only something you can decide.
Nbme are always greater than instructor written exams imho.
A
AnatomyGrey12
Honestly I think every school should just move to NBME exams. I feel that the difference between the people who get a high B and an A on professor written exams is essentially who guessed better as to what the professor wanted instead of actually knowing the material better.
But how can we truly differentiate the wheat from the chaff if we provide clinically relevant and practical exams vs testing minutia? What would happen to medical education if we deemphasize focusing on useless details? How can we justify AOA status? We might as well turn the keys over to caribbean grads.
Which is why there is nothing wrong in doing below average on professor written exams as long as you destroy Step 1 and rock the clinical years.
Having NBME exams just makes everyone's lives a lot easier honestly.
Not everybody at Duke got their average score. If Duke is anything like my school, the Standard Deviation on their scores is going to be +/- 10-15 points. So again, as has been repeated multiple times on here, scores are very individual driven based off of basic knowledge/test taking skill and motivation studying. Plus schools also have to prepare you for more than Step 1, like those clinicals that start a couple days after you take the test.
Duke's reported 10th-90th is 505-522, with a median of 516. Their 25th percentile is slightly above the mean for all matriculants. Mean cGPA is 3.85. They have (1) a very above average cohort, and (2) students who specifically choose their model over more traditional ones. Duke is also very heavy into producing more research-oriented physicians. It's therefore difficult to imagine it being extrapolated to a lot of other institutions.
If my school was going to compress the preclinical curriculum to 12 months it would force us to convert a lot of recommended premedical coursework into required coursework (formally or informally). We would need students who can hit the ground running on anatomy, biochem, genetics, immunology, physiology, etc. The 30-year-old music major who does a bare minimum DIY postbac would be toast in the admissions process, even if that person aced the courses and had a decent MCAT.
As it stands, the 18 and 24 month preclinical curricula give you a little more breathing room, and the 18 month lets you end core clerkships in spring of M3. For the majority of schools those formulas work just fine.
And, in the end, the question is which school produces "better" doctors—if they do at all—which would be a very interesting longitudinal study that could be conducted, though it's a little up-in-the-air as to how one would operationalize "better doctors." For Duke (and for other research powerhouses), I'm sure they'd operationalize a "better" doctor as one who has both good patient outcomes and concomitantly produces outstanding research; other schools, with differing missions, would likely operationalize a "better" doctor as one who fits their respective missions.
It's hard to extrapolate from these changes to curricula, and how much of an impact it has on the physician workforce. I think the impact is non-zero, but how we'd get to that data accurately and meaningfully—that's the difficult part. Do any of you know of some papers that investigate this sort of thing? And I don't mean whether or not these changes to PBL or what have you result in better Step 1/2 scores, but rather, whether or not there is research on these changes regarding their effects (or lack thereof) on the future physicians they're targeting.
Gladwell said it nicely:
A ranking can be heterogeneous, in other words, as long as it doesn’t try to be too comprehensive. And it can be comprehensive as long as it doesn’t try to measure things that are heterogeneous. But it’s an act of real audacity when a ranking system tries to be comprehensive and heterogeneous—which is the first thing to keep in mind in any consideration of U.S. News & World Report’s annual “Best Colleges” guide.
For one school a successful graduate is one doing R01-funded translational research in a large, tertiary academic medical center. For another school it's one giving primary care to a rural patient base of 5,000. Apples to VHS.
Sure, but that's easier said than done. Most students who spend 2 years of preclinical education being consistently below average don't suddenly turn around and perform exceptionally on the USMLE.
Right but it allows naturally good test takers not to put much stock into professor written exams (as long as they can just pass) and can just focus their efforts on doing well on the boards.
I think for many this mindset becomes a crutch that allows them to feel OK about underperforming only to be eventually brought back to earth when they get their step 1 score. Your argument also hinges on the assumption that preclinical students can accurately identify what they do and don't need to know to do well on Step 1, which is not uniformly true.
I typed and retyped a bunch of other stuff here since I have a lot of thoughts about step 1 studying and preclinical stuff, but it's probably beyond the scope of this thread or subforum. Happy to chat over PM if you'd like.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I wouldn't mind hearing them on this thread, especially as step 1 is something all of us in this current cycle need to start thinking about. This is pretty important too as some of us will have options in the schools we attend with varied curriculums e.g. PBL vs traditional vs step 1 after core clerkships.
Are these all the schools that have MSTP programs?
For some reason I thought that schools weren't very forthcoming about their average Step 1 scores. Are schools self-reporting to USNews?
The only two structural curricular changes in the last two decades that might impact step 1 performance are (1) the enshrinement of dedicated study time, and (2) moving step 1 after core clerkships. And the latter is still being debated.
Look, the dirty secret of step 1 is that every medical school in the country covers about the same stuff. We dress it up in different ways to promote various ancillary processes, like critical analysis and teamwork, but at the end of the day the content itself is not some grand mystery. There is some longstanding wisdom that in my experience (both personal and observational) has turned out to still be true: the best prep for step 1 is to pay attention during the preclinical curriculum. Sure, work the Q-Bank in parallel. Sure, annotate First Aid and stare at Sketchy over holidays. But the real hard work that will get you a decent score is the boring, day-by-day, week-by-week grind of learning the basic biomedical sciences.
Does this mean professor written exams are actually accurate? I was thinking a shift to NBME exams would result in significant improvement in median Step 1 scores.
Wouldn't the test-makers—upon observing a significant rise in median scores—simply make the test harder though?
I'm pretty sure the exam became harder over the years, but I have no idea.
Think of prepping for step like training for a marathon. The people busting their ass for instructor written exams are consistently a
undergoing a rigorous conditioning regimen. Vs the people who say they are just prepping for step are saying " I'm could do that if I wanted " while sitting on the sofa. When actual step time roles around the people who were sitting on the sofa are now trying to get in shape for the step, while the people who have been consistently busting their asses are now fine tuning and setting personal bests.
Who do you think is going to do better ?
It means that if you learn the material well enough you can excel on both faculty-written exams and the USMLE.
In 1997 the minimum passing score for step 1 was 176. Now it's 192.
I'm confused. This implies the NBME exams are easier than faculty written exams.
You can make an NBME exam that's easy, hard, or anywhere in between. The inherent difference between NBME questions and faculty questions is that the former have been vetted by numerous people and answered thousands of times.
Last edited:
That is not the implication. If you learn the info and do well on the exams you are better off than people who state they just studying for the boards. There is also a large subset of people who can't perform better on the instructor exams and state that they are studying for boards. These are usually the same people that do poorly when nbmes are administered.
unc is stuck up AND sucks 🙂 loving these numbers.
I am not sure if OP posted this with an intention of defending the controversial rise of NYU ranking, but Step 1 score really isn’t an accurate reflection of the quality of medical school program.
The average score can change drastically depending on how heavily school tailors its curriculum to the materials often tested on the board exams and flexibility of their second year scheduling, which can provide students with more time to prepare for the exam.
For teh same reasons, you often see mid- to low-tier community-based residency programs triumphing over more prestigious programs in board pass rate, but it doesn’t mean those community-based programs are superior to other programs.
The average score can change drastically depending on how heavily school tailors its curriculum to the materials often tested on the board exams and flexibility of their second year scheduling, which can provide students with more time to prepare for the exam.
For teh same reasons, you often see mid- to low-tier community-based residency programs triumphing over more prestigious programs in board pass rate, but it doesn’t mean those community-based programs are superior to other programs.
OP posted back in November, so it was completely unrelated to the new USNWR information.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Sure, my point still stands in case people try to use that metric to justify for the questionable rise of NYU in medical school ranking.
Not really
Not sure what exactly your vendetta against NYU is but its pretty sad how obsessed you are. NYU's Step 1 score jumped when they switched from a 2+2 curriculum to a 1.5+2.5 curriculum (which shows how little you know about the actual school) where they take step 1 AFTER clerkships, this switch was made more than 5 years ago and literally has nothing to do with rankings. In fact, the step 1 average is not even publicized or mentioned except for on US News.
Wasn’t there a study awhile back where they surveyed PDs and most said that school ranking was around like the 15th most important thing they cared about? Lol Not that I had any shot at getting into a top 20 school but mostly this just makes me glad I’m at a cheap state school.
Anyway, some of these are super interesting. What’s up with Baylor being that high and UC Davis being that low? I’m totally unfamiliar with both schools but I wouldn’t have guessed either of those to be sandwiching things on this list.
Anyway, some of these are super interesting. What’s up with Baylor being that high and UC Davis being that low? I’m totally unfamiliar with both schools but I wouldn’t have guessed either of those to be sandwiching things on this list.
Baylor has a pseudo monopoly on the best students in Texas because almost everyone in the state stays in state and also wants to go to Baylor. They are known for giving their students a lot of time off and taking Step 1 after clerkships. Do these things explain their step scores? Idk, but I bet they factor in.
Our school kinda does the same thing with grades and predicting who will do well on step. If you are predicted to fail or do below the class they will found a expensive Step boot camp to help you get over whatever problems you might be having. Apparently to get the founding they had to prove that their predictive ability was accurate
southpaw3
Full Member
Data: USNWR Research rankings 2018, USNWR reported step 1 average 2016
Hi guys, there is an ongoing reddit thread with a list of school's step 1 averages. S/o to @Serine_Minor for posting each school's average from USNWR data. I took the liberty to organize the data a little bit and thought I'd share it with the larger pre-med community. While USNWR rank isn't a definitive metric for how good a school is or how happy you'll be there, it may be a rough indicator for the type of students that attend those institutions. When you match step 1 average with USNWR rank, there are some interesting outliers in the data. Of course, I'd imagine the standard deviations are pretty high for these averages, so again we can probably only use this as a rough metric.
Comment: Blue = higher score/rank, yellow = lower score / rank
Is Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center the one in Lubbock?
So, according to Dell's school specific thread, it turns out that their median step this year was 249. Absolute madness.
i still think they are massaging numbers.
Wouldn't be surprised. I think most (or at least a lot of) schools do. It's unfortunate that people use step average as a reason to pick a school over another. The average itself is largely irrelevant, because like said elsewhere in the thread, at least 90% of step is you, not the school. That said, I prefer schools with only NBME exams. I feel like it helps, at least psychologically.
But I find it impressive (even if massaged) that a new school was able to score that high, that quickly.
I don’t think they are actually, having some insider knowledge about the school (founding faculty member is a personal friend and mentor, several UG classmates attend)
The winning strategy was curriculum + throwing a lot of money at students w very high stats imo
What exactly about the curriculum do you think played a part?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Same thing that seems to win it for many others high on the list. Chance to do clinical rotations before taking the test, pass/fail, minimal traditional lectures, no mandatory attendance for non group activities/labs, etc.
Last edited:
How many people of the starting class's were allowed to take step on time ? How many delayed ?
The number includes the entire class (50). Don’t know how delayed would work in context given that Dell has flexible step 1 schedules.
A
AnatomyGrey12
Ive never been more jealous in my entire life than I am at this statement.
Similar threads
