Low Step 1(204) , straight A's during clerkship 3rd year and decent LORs studying for STEP 2 can i still get into neurology?
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
Score to low for neurology?
- Thread starter chuelas1
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
- Messages
- 6,005
- Reaction score
- 4,357
a 230+ score in step2 before September 15 submission might make things somewhat easier, but anything short of 230+ in step2 warrants a back up plan IMO.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2013
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 14
Try to get great letters and to rock step 2. You should match neurology, but consider also applying to a backup specialty just to be careful.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2016
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 684
Neurology is a very uncompetitive specialty to apply to, if you apply broadly someone will take you. This isn't NSG or ENT.
Talk to your PD and Chair, they will tell you the truth (and likely reaffirm what I am saying in that many spots go unfilled and there is essentially a 100% match rate). Best of luck.
Talk to your PD and Chair, they will tell you the truth (and likely reaffirm what I am saying in that many spots go unfilled and there is essentially a 100% match rate). Best of luck.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2015
- Messages
- 1,066
- Reaction score
- 2,161
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
- Messages
- 6,005
- Reaction score
- 4,357
Of course it's an opinion since I am not looking at my crystal ball right now, but I am wondering what would be your advice to anyone who is almost 2 stdv below average on step1 for a specialty they want to get into....
It's strange that you don't take any offense with another poster who essentially voices a similar opinion. You are just out to attack me as you've been doing for months in SDN.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2014
- Messages
- 863
- Reaction score
- 1,501
It's an important distinction when you spread hysteria and talk out of your ass.
Per charting outcomes 90% (36/40) of US seniors in OPs range (200-210) matched. Additionally he crushed it 3rd year, so he might kick ass on step 2.
And charting outcomes reports quartiles by specialty, not std devs, so I don't know where you pulled that out of. The std deviation for the aggregate of medical students is ~20, and as sample size drops variance increases, so I seriously doubt he is "2 standard deviations below the mean."
Op if you're an IMG the chances are about 50 50 per charting outcomes based solely on step score. The rest of your app means that you're probably better off than that.
If you're an amg you stand a chance at decent programs with your grades, but have a lot of community options as back up. And kick ass on step2/sub is.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 2,440
- Reaction score
- 5,517
You said to instead of too.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 1,423
- Reaction score
- 1,600
Some of you are the most special, unique snowflakes I've ever come to know.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
- Messages
- 6,005
- Reaction score
- 4,357
@dadaddadaBATMAN
I said almost 2 stdv below the mean, and my # comes from aamc.org
OP is free to do whatever he/she wants. I would have a back up plan if I were in his/her position...
I said almost 2 stdv below the mean, and my # comes from aamc.org
OP is free to do whatever he/she wants. I would have a back up plan if I were in his/her position...
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2014
- Messages
- 863
- Reaction score
- 1,501
I have no idea why you would use this data, which is survey based with just under 200 respondents. Charting the outcomes literally tracks every member of the match, and is far more reliable. Using other data sets makes very little sense.
Data and Analysis - AAMC
Assuming this is your data set, the average here is 225 with a std dev of 18. That means a 207 is the bottom of one standard deviation. Op is not "almost 2 std deviations below the mean." It's still wrong.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
- Messages
- 6,005
- Reaction score
- 4,357
@dadaddadaBATMAN
It's not the data set that I am using. We all know that average step1 for applicants who matched neuro in 2016 was 231 (unmatched applicants was 216). OP is 1 1/2 stdv below the mean right now assuming the stdv is still 18 (which I think might be lower if we want to extrapolate from unmatched step 1 average). I was not saying OP has NO chances; I was just saying that a better step2 would increase his/her chances. And if he/she performs poorly also on step2, a back up plan is warranted.
I don't get why you are accusing me of spreading hysteria when I basically said the same thing you said in your post #9 (last sentence).
It's not the data set that I am using. We all know that average step1 for applicants who matched neuro in 2016 was 231 (unmatched applicants was 216). OP is 1 1/2 stdv below the mean right now assuming the stdv is still 18 (which I think might be lower if we want to extrapolate from unmatched step 1 average). I was not saying OP has NO chances; I was just saying that a better step2 would increase his/her chances. And if he/she performs poorly also on step2, a back up plan is warranted.
I don't get why you are accusing me of spreading hysteria when I basically said the same thing you said in your post #9 (last sentence).
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 9,907
- Reaction score
- 10,037
There are times to have a backup plan and there are times that it would be unnecessary. OP would benefit from having a mentor in the field who can go over their program list with them and give them a realistic idea about their chances. If they apply to the right programs and no other issues with their app or interview, they have an extremely high chance of matching in neurology and a backup specialty (i.e. more interviews) would be highly unnecessary.
Look at the rest of the data and not just average Step 1. It's just an average. In CTO 2016, 40/41 US seniors with a Step 1 of 201-210 matched. Hell, 5/6 of people with a 201-210 CK matched (only a 209 or 210 is pass). Of course a better CK will help, no one is denying that. But plenty of people with low Step 1 scores are perfectly successful in the match without needing a backup specialty.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2015
- Messages
- 1,066
- Reaction score
- 2,161
No other posters voiced similar opinions. I'm not out to attack you, but spreading neurotic thought on an already very neurotic forum, and with no solid evidence to back it doesn't do anyone any favors. I have nothing to add to what @Ismet and @dadaddadaBATMAN have said.
Last edited:
Average board scores are useful for comparing the average competitiveness of specialties to one another. They are not very useful for assessing one's individual chances of matching. For most specialties, there is a wide range of competitiveness of programs and people tend to primarily apply "within their league." This is why if you look at charting outcomes, match rates for people with scores well below the average can still be quite high. The good news is that charting outcomes has pretty good data about match rates with different step scores.
I think with a good advisor, the OP will likely match into neurology. A backup is probably unnecessary but that decision can be made with an advisor based on how much time and money OP has and how risk-averse they are.
I think with a good advisor, the OP will likely match into neurology. A backup is probably unnecessary but that decision can be made with an advisor based on how much time and money OP has and how risk-averse they are.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
- Messages
- 6,005
- Reaction score
- 4,357
I guess I am too risk-averse then. I saw how stressful the SOAP was for a friend this year; won't take any chances... Good luck OP!
It's easy to say this before you realize you have very little time or money to go on expensive interviews at programs you realistically would never wind up at. Of course if one's only goal was matching somewhere, it would be optimal to have interviewed at every residency program in every specialty in the U.S. You have to be realistic, though.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,226
- Reaction score
- 3,796
And is neurology is the primary, what would the backup be anyway?
You need a backup specialty if your field is a competitive one, not when your field of choice is neurology.And is neurology is the primary, what would the backup be anyway?
Eh. People rank backups whenever they feel it's somewhat likely to not match in the specialty, regardless of whether the specialty is overall considered "competitive." I just matched in psych and I know that some people in psych do list FM as a backup. A popular backup for many fields is to fall back on a preliminary.
Actually, since neuro is often an advanced position, it might be prudent for OP to "double dip" and list his prelims on his primary ROL after all of his advanced positions. That way, at no extra cost/interviews to him, he already has a backup of sorts, at least for a year.
That said, I think OP will be able to match in neuro. Maybe not in California or in his choice program, but I think he'll match.
Depends on your perspective. In any case, all questions of this sort can be easily answered by deciding what probability of matching you will accept as "good for neurology" and then looking at charting outcomes to find the coresponding score.
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 9,907
- Reaction score
- 10,037
Someone at my school is an MD/PhD with board scores that can only be described as astronomical and he didn't match to his primary (competitive) surgical specialty and wound up only matching a prelim. I've met this person and despite the great application there are a few reasons why I'm actually not that surprised.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 1,992
- Reaction score
- 2,157
Which is more competitive, a neuro (advanced) residency, or a med prelim? There are a lot more folks (and a lot more competitive folks) fighting for the very limited number of med prelims, and just because one is applying neuro it doesn't give one any advantage in the intern match.
Maybe the OP's neuroticism is misplaced and needs to be redirected?
Maybe the OP's neuroticism is misplaced and needs to be redirected?
