- Joined
- Jun 15, 2003
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 0
heres the question
have not taken step 1 yet although I am well in my clinical years (I only recently became serious about pursuing a residency in the US).
I have used usmle orientated review books for rotations and I enjoy reviewing the material (although I am thinking of IM knowing a few basic info about most fields in clinical medicine derm,ENT ect just seems quite important and interesting)
Plus in order to complete my education in my country (obtain a license to practice here) I am looking at a year or rural service witch is like general practice, Thus it seems that a high yield overall clinical review will be what I ll be doing for the next 2 years anyway,
So I think it would be wise to take step 2 first, give it everything I ve got and do quite well (I belive this is possible).
Then my plan was to try to get whatever I can from step 1(3-6 mo study time) or judge how hard I need to hit it based on my step 2 performance. It seems I don?t have the time (GP duty) or the inclination to go back to reviewing basic sciences intensively.
BUT I read in (step 2) first aid that step 1 is far more important for FMGs than step 2. is this true?
I already knew this was the case for US-MGs but I attributed that to the fact that most of them land a residency before taking step 2.
I thought it was irrational for the 2 scores not to have at least the same gravity since imgs especially non-US citizens are obliged to send in both scores in order to be considered for a residency spot.
I mean if I was choosing someone to do a residency I would certainly value someone?s documented ability to diagnose differentiate and treat conditions far more than knowledge he has demonstrated on anatomic structures or mechanisms of disease.
Do you think that since it has been repeatedly suggested in this forum that if one doesn?t do well in step1 he should try to include a strong step 2 score in his application I can do it the other way round? Shoot high in 2 and lower in 1? Or is it imperative that I make the time and the effort to do well in step1 weather I achieve a high step 2 score or not?
(I know many people would want to think in terms of actual scores to give a definitive answer but please try to tell me if I can do what I am thinking of at least in principal.)
have not taken step 1 yet although I am well in my clinical years (I only recently became serious about pursuing a residency in the US).
I have used usmle orientated review books for rotations and I enjoy reviewing the material (although I am thinking of IM knowing a few basic info about most fields in clinical medicine derm,ENT ect just seems quite important and interesting)
Plus in order to complete my education in my country (obtain a license to practice here) I am looking at a year or rural service witch is like general practice, Thus it seems that a high yield overall clinical review will be what I ll be doing for the next 2 years anyway,
So I think it would be wise to take step 2 first, give it everything I ve got and do quite well (I belive this is possible).
Then my plan was to try to get whatever I can from step 1(3-6 mo study time) or judge how hard I need to hit it based on my step 2 performance. It seems I don?t have the time (GP duty) or the inclination to go back to reviewing basic sciences intensively.
BUT I read in (step 2) first aid that step 1 is far more important for FMGs than step 2. is this true?
I already knew this was the case for US-MGs but I attributed that to the fact that most of them land a residency before taking step 2.
I thought it was irrational for the 2 scores not to have at least the same gravity since imgs especially non-US citizens are obliged to send in both scores in order to be considered for a residency spot.
I mean if I was choosing someone to do a residency I would certainly value someone?s documented ability to diagnose differentiate and treat conditions far more than knowledge he has demonstrated on anatomic structures or mechanisms of disease.
Do you think that since it has been repeatedly suggested in this forum that if one doesn?t do well in step1 he should try to include a strong step 2 score in his application I can do it the other way round? Shoot high in 2 and lower in 1? Or is it imperative that I make the time and the effort to do well in step1 weather I achieve a high step 2 score or not?
(I know many people would want to think in terms of actual scores to give a definitive answer but please try to tell me if I can do what I am thinking of at least in principal.)
