Step 1 screens

[(Pants)^2]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey all,

1st, congrats to all who have interviewed. Way to go!

Now, for all those who are considering applying to Rad Onc next year but have a low step 1 score, my advice is - don't even bother.

I had a very low step 1 (passed, just barely), but was hoping that great step 2 and step 3 would help out. Also I had worked at some pretty prestigious research labs and published as first author. Good letter's of rec from Rad Onc doc's, the whole deal. American Medical Grad from a good (not great) school.

I wasted ~$600 dollars applying to Rad Onc. I didn't get a single interview invitation. Now you are probably saying to yourself, "well, there must be something else he isn't saying. Something bad. Poor grades... something.."

Nope, nothing else. My application is as above. Pretty good, except for step 1. But that was enough to screen me out. 🙁
I guess the bottom line is that applications are not even looked at if step 1 score is too low.

 

[medgator]

What about your third year performance? That's pretty impt IMO as part of your application package...

 

[Thaiger75]

That may have been true for you, but not everyone. I know more than one person that matched with a low step 1. Chances are definitely against someone matching with a very low step 1, but not unheard of. It could be that you didn't apply to enough programs and not every program "screens" step 1 scores.

Hey all,

1st, congrats to all who have interviewed. Way to go!

Now, for all those who are considering applying to Rad Onc next year but have a low step 1 score, my advice is - don't even bother.

I had a very low step 1 (passed, just barely), but was hoping that great step 2 and step 3 would help out. Also I had worked at some pretty prestigious research labs and published as first author. Good letter's of rec from Rad Onc doc's, the whole deal. American Medical Grad from a good (not great) school.

I wasted ~$600 dollars applying to Rad Onc. I didn't get a single interview invitation. Now you are probably saying to yourself, "well, there must be something else he isn't saying. Something bad. Poor grades... something.."

Nope, nothing else. My application is as above. Pretty good, except for step 1. But that was enough to screen me out. 🙁
I guess the bottom line is that applications are not even looked at if step 1 score is too low.

 

[(Pants)^2]

next

 

[(Pants)^2]

next

 

[(Pants)^2]

That may have been true for you, but not everyone. I know more than one person that matched with a low step 1. Chances are definitely against someone matching with a very low step 1, but not unheard of. It could be that you didn't apply to enough programs and not every program "screens" step 1 scores.

I had above average 3rd year grades. Mostly high pass. One pass. One Honors.

I applied to 34 programs. Is that enough??? Plus, one P.D. did reply to my e-mail regarding why I was not interviewed. He simply stated it was a low step 1.
I believe I was screened out because nothing else makes sense.
Not one interview. 😡

 

[Thaiger75]

There's no number for "enough". The more, the better you apply to. My philosophy is to apply to as many programs in locations that you wouldn't go insane if you lived there to maximize chances. All it takes is one.

Your score certainly seems like the most likely culprit, but you can never know for sure. What did your mentor/program director say?

I had above average 3rd year grades. Mostly high pass. One pass. One Honors.

I applied to 34 programs. Is that enough??? Plus, one P.D. did reply to my e-mail regarding why I was not interviewed. He simply stated it was a low step 1.
I believe I was screened out because nothing else makes sense.
Not one interview. 😡

 

[3dtp]

There's no number for "enough". The more, the better you apply to. My philosophy is to apply to as many programs in locations that you wouldn't go insane if you lived there to maximize chances. All it takes is one.

Your score certainly seems like the most likely culprit, but you can never know for sure. What did your mentor/program director say?

Back in the pre-digital dark ages when feudal lords ruled the forests, and dinosaurs had only recently become extinct, the NBME had a statement in its bulletins that the USMLE scores were not useful in providing applicant discriminant information and that residency programs who tried to use the score were abusing the exam. That is also the reason they disallow retakes on the exam.

I just looked at the USMLE/NBME sites and see that they have dropped all pretext of this idea. When I was asked by a very prestigious program about my score, I quoted the USMLE statement and said I passed.

While the USMLE score may give some indications, unless we are interested in hiring "radiation mechanics" I hope that PDs would give weight to other aspects of a qualified candidate that fit well with the practice of cancer treatment. Is there evidence (ie prospective randomized controled studies) to support the notion that high USMLE scores equate to better [pick your specialist] more than other potential weighting factors?

 

[RadOncAnon]

In my limited experience with the current application cycle, PDs are basically of two minds when it comes to Step I scores:

1. Hard screens set at 220, 230, or 240.

2. One PD has told me, at their program, if an applicant has a two-digit score of 90 (which corresponds to ~215 or so) then that is good enough for them. The thinking goes that the main difference between a 90 and a 99 is most likely hard work during classes and good, efficient studying -- less likely to represent intellectual capacity.

To be honest, if you barely pass Step I, you may have a hard time getting into even moderately competitive residencies let alone RadOnc.

True, Step 1 may not be terribly important in the big scheme of things, but PDs definitely would want good standardized test takers for the RadOnc boards.

Honestly, as others have posted before, many of us should be thankful that RadOnc is basically the only competitive field that actually places great weight on non-numerical aspects of your application like LORs and research.

 

[ronmexico]

The thinking goes that the main difference between a 90 and a 99 is most likely hard work during classes and good, efficient studying -- less likely to represent intellectual capacity.
.

if it is as you say and different scores do not indicate different intellectual capacities then it must represent something. hard work, efficient studying, sound preparation these too are reasonable traits by which to differentiate applicants. obviously, there is some component of both. how much for each person; who knows. If you are exceptionally bright, but can't perform; what good is that. If you can perform; then why question the intellect. let's face it, the usmle is the only even playing field that every program in every discipline has to look at applicants from very differing circumstances.

 

[Thaiger75]

Of course. That's why standardized tests exist. In my opinion, USMLE does reflect some book knowledge and the ability to critically think to some extent (at least on step 2 and 3), but I think a large component tests how good of a test taker you are, which says nothing about your intellect.

let's face it, the usmle is the only even playing field that every program in every discipline has to look at applicants from very differing circumstances.

 

[(Pants)^2]

Of course. That's why standardized tests exist. In my opinion, USMLE does reflect some book knowledge and the ability to critically think to some extent (at least on step 2 and 3), but I think a large component tests how good of a test taker you are, which says nothing about your intellect.

I agree with the above, with one caveat: Some people just have a bad testing day. I did.
I got zero sleep the night before my Step 1, I was so nervous. During the exam my brain felt like oat-meal.
On step 2, I had learned some relaxation techniques and I wasn't so stressed. I did very well on step 2. Step 3, same deal. My score was good.

But the problem with screens for step 1 is that step 2 and 3 don't even get looked at. If someone bothered to look at my step 2 and 3, I'm sure I would have been interviewed.

I guess that's life though... whether applying to college or grad school or law school or med school, standardized testing are where the cuts are made.

Anyway, I kinda don't care anymore. I'll have a good career in IM and maybe do a fellowship in Heme Onc.