Seems like everyone gets 260+ here...what is a good score?

[Elbowstoopointy]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm looking into IM...taking Step 1 next June and have no idea what kind of score is realistically good due to the posts on here.

Based on the NBME website...it appears if you have anything over 245 you can match into any subspecialty. I'm all for doing your best- but will a 260 matter a lot more than a 240 for something like IM? My gut tells me no...

Would love a 260 though😀

 

[KSDeacon]

I'm looking into IM...taking Step 1 next June and have no idea what kind of score is realistically good due to the posts on here.

Based on the NBME website...it appears if you have anything over 245 you can match into any subspecialty. I'm all for doing your best- but will a 260 matter a lot more than a 240 for something like IM? My gut tells me no...

Would love a 260 though😀

This is literally the worst website to come to and start looking at scores. National average is 220 (altho I think for the 7/13 release it was 222). Honestly anything in the 220+ is good, especially considering the average med student is already someone highly intelligent and driven. Obviously everyone wants the 265, but it's not feasible for most of us. 240 would be a great score, and I'd argue that most people, if they study smart and are motivated enough can pull that off.
Don't let the crazies here on sdn get you down!

 

[Mr hawkings]

This is literally the worst website to come to and start looking at scores. National average is 220 (altho I think for the 7/13 release it was 222). Honestly anything in the 220+ is good, especially considering the average med student is already someone highly intelligent and driven. Obviously everyone wants the 265, but it's not feasible for most of us. 240 would be a great score, and I'd argue that most people, if they study smart and are motivated enough can pull that off.
Don't let the crazies here on sdn get you down!

So true. I actually got down for like 5 minutes when i got my 229 after reading SDN reports then i realized that i had done better that half of the country.

 

[Rollo]

So true. I actually got down for like 5 minutes when i got my 229 after reading SDN reports then i realized that i had done better that half of the country.

And don't forget the other couple of thousands IMGs.

 

[airmax]

I'm looking into IM...taking Step 1 next June and have no idea what kind of score is realistically good due to the posts on here.

Based on the NBME website...it appears if you have anything over 245 you can match into any subspecialty. I'm all for doing your best- but will a 260 matter a lot more than a 240 for something like IM? My gut tells me no...

Would love a 260 though😀

according to the NRMP program match 2010 survey results, which "shed light on the factors that program directors use in both (1) selecting applicants to interview and (2) ranking applicants for the Match," for IM residencies, the average step 1 score above which programs almost always grant interviews is 228.

beat that score, and the rest is gravy

 

[DoctwoB]

I'm looking into IM...taking Step 1 next June and have no idea what kind of score is realistically good due to the posts on here.

Based on the NBME website...it appears if you have anything over 245 you can match into any subspecialty. I'm all for doing your best- but will a 260 matter a lot more than a 240 for something like IM? My gut tells me no...

Would love a 260 though😀

A 240 may mean that you have trouble getting interviews at a very few "top" IM programs (mainly Brigham and UCSF). For pretty much everywhere else, it will be fine.

 

[BlondDoctor]

And don't forget the other couple of thousands IMGs.

I keep hearing they put ECFMG and NBME on two different scales, but I can't find that definitively anywhere just rumors...

 

[blueboyscholar]

And don't forget the other couple of thousands IMGs.

Have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Some of the highest scores posted on here are from IMGs.

 

[blueboyscholar]

I keep hearing they put ECFMG and NBME on two different scales, but I can't find that definitively anywhere just rumors...

I've heard the same thing. Basically, I've heard that as an IMG, one needs to score 25 points higher to have "equal" scores to their American counterparts. Not sure if this is a universal truth or not.

 

[Sheldor]

Have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Some of the highest scores posted on here are from IMGs.

Just because the IMGs that post here have high scores doesn't mean that they all do!

 

[blueboyscholar]

IMGs can be categorized into a couple of broad categories: those who can barely speak English and those who speak English quite well...blah, blah, blah, nevermind, it's not important. People are entitled to their own opinions.

 

[Tummy]

I've heard the same thing. Basically, I've heard that as an IMG, one needs to score 25 points higher to have "equal" scores to their American counterparts. Not sure if this is a universal truth or not.

Ahh, what? Then Pollux just broke the 300, I guess (if you don't know, he scored 276 as an IMG). Or did you mean it the other way round?

Actually, I can't imagine that they give different scores. First of all, it would be very strange and would make the scores not really comparable. Second, from what I've read so far, the NBME/UWorld/Qbank scores from IMGs correlate quite similar to the real deal like the ones of US graduates.

 

[DrBowtie]

Ahh, what? Then Pollux just broke the 300, I guess (if you don't know, he scored 276 as an IMG). Or did you mean it the other way round?

Actually, I can't imagine that they give different scores. First of all, it would be very strange and would make the scores not really comparable. Second, from what I've read so far, the NBME/UWorld/Qbank scores from IMGs correlate quite similar to the real deal like the ones of US graduates.

They don't give different scores on different scales. They are just used by PDs differently. Its hard for them to compare the USMD who studied for 4 weeks in a standard curriculum vs. some IMGs who take 6 months to study for Step 1 hence the bias towards USMDs.

 

[ArcGurren]

I've heard the same thing. Basically, I've heard that as an IMG, one needs to score 25 points higher to have "equal" scores to their American counterparts. Not sure if this is a universal truth or not.

No that's ridiculous. They have to put in extra effort selling themselves as competitive applicants very often but they can do plenty of other things to set themselves apart. Ex., family friend matched medicine, pursuant to a GI fellowship, with a 221; she's an IMG and did 2 years of research.

 

[Tummy]

They don't give different scores on different scales. They are just used by PDs differently. Its hard for them to compare the USMD who studied for 4 weeks in a standard curriculum vs. some IMGs who take 6 months to study for Step 1 hence the bias towards USMDs.

Oh, nevermind. Thought the talking about scales was referring to the outdoing of IMGs on Step 1.

 

[BlondDoctor]

They are just used by PDs differently. Its hard for them to compare the USMD who studied for 4 weeks in a standard curriculum vs. some IMGs who take 6 months to study for Step 1 hence the bias towards USMDs.

But what about all the US citizen IMGs that go to Caribbean schools, or people like me who are Americans who are going to med school in Europe...we don't take 6 months off. I'm doing this the summer MS2 just like the rest of ya 🙂


What I meant with the different scales was that ECFMG and NBME had different curves that they use to give your 3 and 2 digit score. Is that true?

 

[okdocrx]

Obviously everyone wants the 265, but it's not feasible for most of us.

Why not?

 

[Tummy]

But what about all the US citizen IMGs that go to Caribbean schools, or people like me who are Americans who are going to med school in Europe...we don't take 6 months off. I'm doing this the summer MS2 just like the rest of ya 🙂


What I meant with the different scales was that ECFMG and NBME had different curves that they use to give your 3 and 2 digit score. Is that true?

Yeah, me neither. Summer after MS4 (6 year program). Hope the PDs consider that a little bit 😉

As I said before, I can't imagine that there are different scales. I never came across anything that led me in this direction.

 

[blueboyscholar]

Ahh, what? Then Pollux just broke the 300, I guess (if you don't know, he scored 276 as an IMG). Or did you mean it the other way round?

Actually, I can't imagine that they give different scores. First of all, it would be very strange and would make the scores not really comparable. Second, from what I've read so far, the NBME/UWorld/Qbank scores from IMGs correlate quite similar to the real deal like the ones of US graduates.

Of course they don't give different scores. All I was saying is that IMGs are at a disadvantage for being IMGs. An IMG that makes a 250 MAY be viewed as equal to an American student that makes a 225.

 

[DrBowtie]

But what about all the US citizen IMGs that go to Caribbean schools, or people like me who are Americans who are going to med school in Europe...we don't take 6 months off. I'm doing this the summer MS2 just like the rest of ya 🙂


What I meant with the different scales was that ECFMG and NBME had different curves that they use to give your 3 and 2 digit score. Is that true?

It's a USMD world and you play by those rules as much as it may suck for you.

There are NOT two different scales.

Why not?

Because once you get that high, its not about studying hard, its raw intelligence and luck.

 

[VenusinFurs]

Ummmm some people here need to look up the meaning of the word "curve."

MOST people CAN'T score 260+ because that is not how math works.

 

[okdocrx]

I mean I'm just asking, so for most people no matter how hard they work they can't get a 260? that seems a bit depressing.

I'm just hoping that I can hard work myself into that upper echelon scoring range.

 

[Rollo]

Of course they don't give different scores. All I was saying is that IMGs are at a disadvantage for being IMGs. An IMG that makes a 250 MAY be viewed as equal to an American student that makes a 225.

This makes no sense.

There is a reason why it's called a standardized test. No matter who you are, where you are, and how you've studied, a 250 is a 250.

 

[blueboyscholar]

This makes no sense.

There is a reason why it's called a standardized test. No matter who you are, where you are, and how you've studied, a 250 is a 250.

I don't make the rules. That's just the way it is for some PDs. They see an IMG and they automatically assume that said student did not receive as good of an education as an American student. It makes perfect sense, since lots of Caribbean schools (just an example) basically teach straight from a BRS book.

 

[Rollo]

I don't make the rules. That's just the way it is for some PDs. They see an IMG and they automatically assume that said student did not receive as good of an education as an American student. It makes perfect sense, since lots of Caribbean schools (just an example) basically teach straight from a BRS book.

Agreed that there is a bias against IMGs to some degree.

However, to suggest that globally an IMG 250 is equivalent to AMG 225 is quite absurd.

 

[blueboyscholar]

Agreed that there is a bias against IMGs to some degree.

However, to suggest that globally an IMG 250 is equivalent to AMG 225 is quite absurd.

Yes, you're exactly right. That is not what I was suggesting though.

 

[Elbowstoopointy]

So...cliffs = 240 is very good and theres no need for a 260 v 240?

 

[sivman17]

I have a random question and I didn't want to make a new thread. When residencies see our step 1 score will they see what the average and SD for that particular exam or will they just look at our score? Someone mentioned how the 7/13 score release had an avg and SD of 222/24 which is higher than normal. Will residency programs see that or will they just have an average for the entire year...? Anyone have any idea?

 

[DrBowtie]

I have a random question and I didn't want to make a new thread. When residencies see our step 1 score will they see what the average and SD for that particular exam or will they just look at our score? Someone mentioned how the 7/13 score release had an avg and SD of 222/24 which is higher than normal. Will residency programs see that or will they just have an average for the entire year...? Anyone have any idea?

Not really a big difference from 221/24.

 

[DocEspana]

This makes no sense.

There is a reason why it's called a standardized test. No matter who you are, where you are, and how you've studied, a 250 is a 250.

Nah. Its really not. Whether deserved or not, PDs (I know 6 PDs off hand, so n is small but every single one said the same thing) feel that you should knock some points off an offshore student's score (I was told 10-15. not 25) when comparing them to an american grad.

At one prestigious hospital in boston its right in their internal medicine departments algorithms to take 15 points off of an USIMG score. Of course thats company secrets, in theory. But the PD admits its right there for them. They do it for the exact reason stated above: it seems unfair to compare an MD (and some degree a DO) who has had very little time to study for it to a student who has their curriculum set up (a la Ross) or encouraged (a la SGU/AUC) for a 6 month class-free study period to prep for the test.

Honestly, for those who are in the islands it would only be hurting yourself to not take the time off if its even an option. The entire system, from what im anecdotally told (and at least 6 hospitals, two of them major famous hospitals) works under the assumption you will take those 6 months off and is docking your score on their algorithms for it.

So in that way: sometimes a 235 is not a 235, but a 220.

 

[WashMe]

Ummmm some people here need to look up the meaning of the word "curve."

MOST people CAN'T score 260+ because that is not how math works.

I disagree with this.

Since the scores are scaled to make current administrations of Step I comparable to all previous administrations of Step I, it is entirely possible that everyone could score 260+. Just based on the fact that the average for the May/June tests was 222 rather than 220-221, you can see that the mean isn't artificially fixed. If everyone in the country crushed the test in a given year [relative to all administrations in previous years], it would be possible for the average to be 275 with a SD of 3 or something like that. The test-takers wouldn't have their scores artificially deflated down to a particular mean.

If course, this will never happen. I'm just saying that it could.

 

[DocEspana]

I disagree with this.

Since the scores are scaled to make current administrations of Step I comparable to all previous administrations of Step I, it is entirely possible that everyone could score 260+. Just based on the fact that the average for the May/June tests was 222 rather than 220-221, you can see that the mean isn't artificially fixed. If everyone in the country crushed the test in a given year [relative to all administrations in previous years], it would be possible for the average to be 275 with a SD of 3 or something like that. The test-takers wouldn't have their scores artificially deflated down to a particular mean.

If course, this will never happen. I'm just saying that it could.

Well actually.... no. people cant all get 260s. In a most theoretical sense they could, but the score is curved to a fixed point. But its not the mean. The score is curved to a theoretical score (300) that isnt attainable. For that matter 290 isnt attainable either if a data analysis I saw at an AMA conference is correct. They lock in what a 300 would be (its something more than 100% right) and they work down, fixing scores so that a regular interval of people score at each level.

Its "fixed against previous scores" in the sense that there are always roughly the same number of grades at each score. The fact that the mean trends up just proves that there are less terribly bad scores and more abnormally great scores, which brings the total mean up ever so slightly (and the st dev up too). But the only way to fix it against past scores is to say that no matter how easy or hard the test was, the same amount of people will get the same region of scores. It cant be helped if 100 people get a 270 because they get 99% of the questions right, but anyone who gets even 1 more question wrong might drop to a 265 right off the bat, in order to maintain the total distribution of great scores a bit.

we're all smart here i dont have to explain bit-by-bit how a curve works. Just noting that its fixed at the "300", which is not attainable by NBME's own ad mission.

 

[Gullain Barre]

Well actually.... no. people cant all get 260s. In a most theoretical sense they could, but the score is curved to a fixed point. But its not the mean. The score is curved to a theoretical score (300) that isnt attainable. For that matter 290 isnt attainable either if a data analysis I saw at an AMA conference is correct. They lock in what a 300 would be (its something more than 100% right) and they work down, fixing scores so that a regular interval of people score at each level.

Its "fixed against previous scores" in the sense that there are always roughly the same number of grades at each score. The fact that the mean trends up just proves that there are less terribly bad scores and more abnormally great scores, which brings the total mean up ever so slightly (and the st dev up too). But the only way to fix it against past scores is to say that no matter how easy or hard the test was, the same amount of people will get the same region of scores. It cant be helped if 100 people get a 270 because they get 99% of the questions right, but anyone who gets even 1 more question wrong might drop to a 265 right off the bat, in order to maintain the total distribution of great scores a bit.

we're all smart here i dont have to explain bit-by-bit how a curve works. Just noting that its fixed at the "300", which is not attainable by NBME's own ad mission.

Very interesting. I hadn't thought they would standardize by the top attainable score. But in retrospect it makes some sense if what you're saying is true and they do curve using 300 rather than 224. Do you have any links or any ideas who came up with that data analysis?

 

[WashMe]

Well actually.... no. people cant all get 260s. In a most theoretical sense they could, but the score is curved to a fixed point. But its not the mean. The score is curved to a theoretical score (300) that isnt attainable. For that matter 290 isnt attainable either if a data analysis I saw at an AMA conference is correct. They lock in what a 300 would be (its something more than 100% right) and they work down, fixing scores so that a regular interval of people score at each level.

Its "fixed against previous scores" in the sense that there are always roughly the same number of grades at each score. The fact that the mean trends up just proves that there are less terribly bad scores and more abnormally great scores, which brings the total mean up ever so slightly (and the st dev up too). But the only way to fix it against past scores is to say that no matter how easy or hard the test was, the same amount of people will get the same region of scores. It cant be helped if 100 people get a 270 because they get 99% of the questions right, but anyone who gets even 1 more question wrong might drop to a 265 right off the bat, in order to maintain the total distribution of great scores a bit.

we're all smart here i dont have to explain bit-by-bit how a curve works. Just noting that its fixed at the "300", which is not attainable by NBME's own ad mission.

I still stand by what I said before. I'm not sure whether you ultimately agree or disagree because you said it is theoretically possible for everyone to score 260+...

It is absolutely possible for everyone to score 260+ in my opinion. If every person in a given year scored 100% on step 1, they'd all probably fall in the 280-290's range. There's no way those people would be normalized down to a lower score, because the questions those people saw on their tests had already been previously validated and assigned difficulty scaling factors a priori, based on data from previous administrations.

 

[DocEspana]

I still stand by what I said before. I'm not sure whether you ultimately agree or disagree because you said it is theoretically possible for everyone to score 260+...

It is absolutely possible for everyone to score 260+ in my opinion. If every person in a given year scored 100% on step 1, they'd all probably fall in the 280-290's range. There's no way those people would be normalized down to a lower score, because the questions those people saw on their tests had already been previously validated and assigned difficulty scaling factors a priori, based on data from previous administrations.

No the tests are assigned difficulty afterwards once they've seen if people are scoring, in raw values, higher than expected compared to other tests historically. Its how they control for a randomly easier test question set. In other words: If my specific testing group all scored unbelievably well, 95% correct on my administration might be a 250. 95% on your administration (and you got a test people generally did worse on) woud be a 275. They scale each test. Its the reason you get if you ask them why it takes them so long. They want to see how difficult or hard your test is compared to all the others given in a given vicinity before and after it.

99% joking protip: this means you should take your test the same day as the dumbest kids in your school. At least they'll help hold the curve down.

 

[DocEspana]

Very interesting. I hadn't thought they would standardize by the top attainable score. But in retrospect it makes some sense if what you're saying is true and they do curve using 300 rather than 224. Do you have any links or any ideas who came up with that data analysis?

No clue. It was a presentation given in july 2009 by the NBME on their tests. IDK the exact guy they sent to the conference.

 

[WashMe]

No the tests are assigned difficulty afterwards once they've seen if people are scoring, in raw values, higher than expected compared to other tests historically. Its how they control for a randomly easier test question set. In other words: If my specific testing group all scored unbelievably well, 95% correct on my administration might be a 250. 95% on your administration (and you got a test people generally did worse on) woud be a 275. They scale each test. Its the reason you get if you ask them why it takes them so long. They want to see how difficult or hard your test is compared to all the others given in a given vicinity before and after it.

99% joking protip: this means you should take your test the same day as the dumbest kids in your school. At least they'll help hold the curve down.

Completely wrong. Per the NBME website:

"What has been said:
I have heard that if you take Step 1 in May through July, you will get a lower score or fail because a lot of candidates test during this period and competition is high.

Reality check:
Fiction
Explanation: The USMLE uses statistical techniques called equating to ensure that the 3-digit score is comparable regardless of what test form or what time of year a candidate tests. There are, however, natural ebbs and flows to the preparation, readiness, and demographic composition that may be associated with the success of candidates who take or retake Step 1 at particular times of the year, which can lead to modest variations in pass rates. For example, specific, highly selective US medical schools whose students typically have very high pass rates tend to test within specific time bands associated with their curriculum, resulting in somewhat higher pass rates during this period. In contrast, students who were unsuccessful on their first attempt tend to retake at other times of the year, resulting in somewhat higher fail rates at that time of year. The statistical techniques used ensure that the same standard is applied to all students regardless of what time of year they test or what test form they are administered."

What this means is that they DON'T just normalize you to the people you take the test with. You are compared to all previous years, which means if everyone during a certain period scores extremely high percentages then they will all get extremely high scores. The difficulty of questions must either be determined (1) a priori, or (2)in a manner combining current and historical data for each question. Remember, the NBME doesn't make all new questions each year, which is why they have a good idea of how current tests compare to previous ones...

edit: for those interested, the NBME lists a few other myths directly on their website:
http://www.nbme.org/students/UrbanLegends/index.html
The most interesting myth? That self-assessment questions will show up on the real deal hahaha

 

[DocEspana]

Completely wrong. Per the NBME website:

"What has been said:
I have heard that if you take Step 1 in May through July, you will get a lower score or fail because a lot of candidates test during this period and competition is high.

Reality check:
Fiction
Explanation: The USMLE uses statistical techniques called equating to ensure that the 3-digit score is comparable regardless of what test form or what time of year a candidate tests. There are, however, natural ebbs and flows to the preparation, readiness, and demographic composition that may be associated with the success of candidates who take or retake Step 1 at particular times of the year, which can lead to modest variations in pass rates. For example, specific, highly selective US medical schools whose students typically have very high pass rates tend to test within specific time bands associated with their curriculum, resulting in somewhat higher pass rates during this period. In contrast, students who were unsuccessful on their first attempt tend to retake at other times of the year, resulting in somewhat higher fail rates at that time of year. The statistical techniques used ensure that the same standard is applied to all students regardless of what time of year they test or what test form they are administered."

What this means is that they DON'T just normalize you to the people you take the test with. You are compared to all previous years, which means if everyone during a certain period scores extremely high percentages then they will all get extremely high scores. The difficulty of questions must either be determined (1) a priori, or (2)in a manner combining current and historical data for each question. Remember, the NBME doesn't make all new questions each year, which is why they have a good idea of how current tests compare to previous ones...

1) Sorry this was an ad hominem before. It's redacted. But of note: the USMLE does change out its questions roughly every 2 years either by it becoming statistically invalid (>85% select the right choice or the majority not picking the right choice) or by simply phasing them out after so many uses, which usually averages out to the 2nd year of use.

2) You just proved my point. If you can't see that, then i'm sorry. They *have* to go through each exam and compare it to previous exams. If they didnt you'd have a rash of *very high* passing scores and a rash of very low passing score. A fail is a fail and a pass is a pass no matter what. Some people are afraid the people smarter than them will lower their score. That's not true. They don't calibrate based on the people, which is what i'd been saying from the start. They *do* calibrate based on the test. Its not just that there will be more high scores if Johns Hopkins decides to take the test 100% on the same day, its that everyone taking it will be higher than expected. the deep fails will be barely fails. the barely fails will be passes. etc all the way up the line. When across the board its an easier administration they analyze it (thus the inability to be a priori) and scale appropriately. its right in there. Your score doesnt get docked, its just a way to say "if you took a bunch of tests and we know this one is x% easier than the average test, you'd score this on the aggregate of many tests"

EDIT: sorry if the above comes off strong. I realize now we're not disagreeing. But you're not following through to the next logical step with what they do and seem stuck on the a priori argument, which is the only truly incorrect thing you've said. Remove that thought and you're 100% right, im just following on with what they do when they do anaylze the tests and find that either its what they expect, with perhaps small individual deviations, or if the test is unusually low scoring or unusually high scoring. We dont compete against each other on the test, we compete against the test and all its previous and immediately adjacent administrations.

 

[WashMe]

1) Sorry this was an ad hominem before. It's redacted. But of note: the USMLE does change out its questions roughly every 2 years either by it becoming statistically invalid (>85% select the right choice or the majority not picking the right choice) or by simply phasing them out after so many uses, which usually averages out to the 2nd year of use.

2) You just proved my point. If you can't see that, then i'm sorry. They *have* to go through each exam and compare it to previous exams. If they didnt you'd have a rash of *very high* passing scores and a rash of very low passing score. A fail is a fail and a pass is a pass no matter what. Some people are afraid the people smarter than them will lower their score. That's not true. They don't calibrate based on the people, which is what i'd been saying from the start. They *do* calibrate based on the test. Its not just that there will be more high scores if Johns Hopkins decides to take the test 100% on the same day, its that everyone taking it will be higher than expected. the deep fails will be barely fails. the barely fails will be passes. etc all the way up the line. When across the board its an easier administration they analyze it (thus the inability to be a priori) and scale appropriately. its right in there. Your score doesnt get docked, its just a way to say "if you took a bunch of tests and we know this one is x% easier than the average test, you'd score this on the aggregate of many tests"

EDIT: sorry if the above comes off strong. I realize now we're not disagreeing. But you're not following through to the next logical step with what they do and seem stuck on the a priori argument, which is the only truly incorrect thing you've said. Remove that thought and you're 100% right, im just following on with what they do when they do anaylze the tests and find that either its what they expect, with perhaps small individual deviations, or if the test is unusually low scoring or unusually high scoring. We dont compete against each other on the test, we compete against the test and all its previous and immediately adjacent administrations.

👍 I agree with you now. Looks like we're on the same page. Regarding my "a priori" argument, note that in my previous post I simply listed that as one possibility (the other I mentioned was that a combination of current and historical performance for any given question is used in scaling). 🙂

 

[fizzle]

The most interesting myth? That self-assessment questions will show up on the real deal hahaha

Actually, one of the questions on the real exam for me was almost exactly the same as one I encountered in the NBME. I only include the "almost" because I obviously didn't memorize the question and every answer choice word for word, but the image, basic question, and the correct answer were the same. I remember thinking, "Well that's pretty messed up," when I encountered the question on the real exam.

 

[ArcGurren]

Actually, one of the questions on the real exam for me was almost exactly the same as one I encountered in the NBME. I only include the "almost" because I obviously didn't memorize the question and every answer choice word for word, but the image, basic question, and the correct answer were the same. I remember thinking, "Well that's pretty messed up," when I encountered the question on the real exam.

Yeah I didn't have any of the exact same questions on my test as in the NBME (to my knowledge), but, I did have a repeated picture.

 

[Decicco]

Actually, one of the questions on the real exam for me was almost exactly the same as one I encountered in the NBME. I only include the "almost" because I obviously didn't memorize the question and every answer choice word for word, but the image, basic question, and the correct answer were the same. I remember thinking, "Well that's pretty messed up," when I encountered the question on the real exam.

I had 5 repeated images (I took four NBMEs), but the questions were different. I would have missed at least 1 of them had I not seen the image before hand. Also saved me a lot of time knowing immediately what the dx was.

 

[Tig2575]

I'm looking into IM...taking Step 1 next June and have no idea what kind of score is realistically good due to the posts on here.

Based on the NBME website...it appears if you have anything over 245 you can match into any subspecialty. I'm all for doing your best- but will a 260 matter a lot more than a 240 for something like IM? My gut tells me no...

Would love a 260 though😀

 

[tco]

Ummmm some people here need to look up the meaning of the word "curve."

MOST people CAN'T score 260+ because that is not how math works.

I love this. I don't understand how people that score 260 can't understand basic statistics. It says a lot about this exam, really.

 

[tco]

I still stand by what I said before. I'm not sure whether you ultimately agree or disagree because you said it is theoretically possible for everyone to score 260+...

It is absolutely possible for everyone to score 260+ in my opinion. If every person in a given year scored 100% on step 1, they'd all probably fall in the 280-290's range. There's no way those people would be normalized down to a lower score, because the questions those people saw on their tests had already been previously validated and assigned difficulty scaling factors a priori, based on data from previous administrations.

Right, everyone that doesn't score a 260 is just lazy.

 

[235009]

I had 5 repeated images (I took four NBMEs), but the questions were different. I would have missed at least 1 of them had I not seen the image before hand. Also saved me a lot of time knowing immediately what the dx was.

I had a repeated image but it was on an epidemiology question and i almost got the question wrong until i realized they weren't asking the same thing as they did on the self-assessment

I also heard from classmates that got pics on their test repeated from the self-assessments

 

[Tig2575]

I love this. I don't understand how people that score 260 can't understand basic statistics. It says a lot about this exam, really.

Read above and check the NBME's "urban legends" page. The exam is not scored on a curve. It is absolutely possible for every single test-taker in an entire year to score above a 260. The score is not based off of the normalized distribution.

 

[KillaKanye21]

myth? I had two questions verbatim off of NBMEs. Why do i know this? Cuz i got them junts WRONG, then called them fire cuz I STOMPED THEM OUT ont he actual shizzle

 

[2012mdc]

I mean I'm just asking, so for most people no matter how hard they work they can't get a 260? that seems a bit depressing.

I'm just hoping that I can hard work myself into that upper echelon scoring range.

To get in that range it requires raw intelligence, good test-taking skills, dedication, and a lot of luck.

Judging from the score reports I've seen posted and my own score report you can have a relative "weak" area and still crack 260. Part of the luck is having less questions on your weak areas and more on the ones you know cold. Besides having a bad day this is why some people drop 20+ from their practice tests.

It's difficult but not impossible to train yourself into a good test taker if you are a bad one. Takes a lot of work and effort and the ability to stay confident and avoid frustration.

It takes a little bit of neuroticness/gunnerish to not be satisfied with a 240's score. I have a classmate who's at least equal to me in raw intelligence, probably smarter but she was EM from the get-go and had no desire to put the work in to score in the 260's.

So...cliffs = 240 is very good and theres no need for a 260 v 240?

Depends on what you're shooting for. UCSF Rads? It probably will make a difference. Competitive but not top tier IM it probably won't.

A 240 won't exclude you at 99% of the programs out there (I've heard rumors of some hyper-competitive programs having cut-offs at 250 but Idk if that's true, no real difference btwn a 250 and a 245 in my book)