Step 1 vs MCAT

[mints of b]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I've read some scattered comments that the Step 1 was more difficult than the MCAT. Fine.

I didn't find the MCAT all that difficult, but I found it remarkably annoying to study for. Having to delve back into old subjects that I despised and that were entirely unrelated to my current academic pursuits (I'm talking to you physics and chemistry) was a real bummer.

I'm wondering if while the Step 1 may be harder, is it possible that it's not such a slog, not quite as annoying to study for because all the subject matter is related to the same theme that you've been immersed in for the preceding two years.

Any truth to this?

 

[Law2Doc]

Any truth to this?

Not at all. Step 1 is a test that covers many times more information than the MCAT. Most people spend many times more hours studying for it than the MCAT. You will be delving back into subjects like anatomy and biochem and embryology which you have long since purged from your second year brain, some of which you have written off as not particularly useful to your ultimate specialty. Most regard it as a harder test due to the volume of course material that is "fair game". Additionally, unlike the MCAT which you can basically retake if you don't like your score, the Step is a one time deal (unless you fail), so what you get may close future doors irretrievably. This adds a level of pressure to the ordeal.

 

[mints of b]

Noted.

 

[DreamRavyn]

To add more:

Step1 feels a bit more tedious b/c every question can come from anywhere - there are no subject sections so it's harder to build momentum (e.g. getting in a Physical science groove, where you know where all the questions are going to come from) (this might be a personal thing - if nothing else at least -I- perceived this to be true)

Also, there's no writing section to serve as a "break" in the action

Also, let's not diss physics any more than one would diss biochemistry, anatomy, and embryology, as I'm sure if I walked onto the wards and asked the nearest resident to rattle off the rate-limiting steps of TCA cycle, they might be hard-pressed to think up an answer.

 

[osli]

I'm sure if I walked onto the wards and asked the nearest resident to rattle off the rate-limiting steps of TCA cycle, they might be hard-pressed to think up an answer.

Many might be hard pressed to know what the hell you were asking about!

 

[Friendly]

Step 1 and the MCAT are two totally different tests. As someone who did poorly on the MCAT but faired well on the USMLE, I would tell you that the MCAT was harder to do well on. Tragically, I even studied for the MCAT more intensely. The MCAT is a test that you are good at or you are not, in my humble opinion. The USMLE just requires lots of recall, and fast reading - not too much thinking.

 

[Ashers]

Also, let's not diss physics any more than one would diss biochemistry, anatomy, and embryology, as I'm sure if I walked onto the wards and asked the nearest resident to rattle off the rate-limiting steps of TCA cycle, they might be hard-pressed to think up an answer.

You might also get a crazy OB/gyn attending that asks about V=IR, the chemical make up of different sutures and how they break down, and the principles behind how a Bovie works.

 

[Terpskins99]

Step 1 and the MCAT are two totally different tests. As someone who did poorly on the MCAT but faired well on the USMLE, I would tell you that the MCAT was harder to do well on. Tragically, I even studied for the MCAT more intensely. The MCAT is a test that you are good at or you are not, in my humble opinion. The USMLE just requires lots of recall, and fast reading - not too much thinking.

Similar situation with myself. I did pretty mediocre on the MCAT, but easily cracked the average on the USMLE.

I absolutely HATED studying for the MCAT. I thought it was a complete waste of time. Drilling was kind of fun, but sitting down and memorizing organic chemistry for hours on end was not cool.

Preparing for the USMLE is an interesting experience. If you think about it, pretty much everything you're studying has some clinical correlation associated with it. If you approach everything thinking about why a particular topic/concept is important in real life, it helps to nail it down in your memory banks.

 

[mints of b]

And another thing: do you walk out of the test having no idea how you've done?

 

[Law2Doc]

And another thing: do you walk out of the test having no idea how you've done?

Most have no clue. You will know some things you are sure you got right, and probably think of a few things you got wrong. There will be a certain number of experimental questions on each test, so you don't even know if some of the things you got right or wrong counted. And your grade is determined with reference to everyone else who had those same questions, so you don't know if you were keeping pace. Best not to think about it.

 

[Friendly]

And another thing: do you walk out of the test having no idea how you've done?

Pretty much. Most people are only confident with about 30% of their answers. This test just covers so much material, and most of it is presented in a way that you've never seen before, requiring lightening-fast responses. You have to wait around 5 weeks to see if you were on the ball or not. It cannot really be studied for; your subject mastery accumulated over two years is what lets you pass - not so much the revision one month before. To say Step 1 is cake would be misleading, but so would saying Step 1 is easy to fair well on.

 

[blz]

step1 was a lot more tedious to study for but you actually progress as you study. the mcat was annoying because my first practice test was a 30 and i studied 2 months to only bring it up 5 points. i wasn't great at verbal so any amount of studying wasn't going to help me.

 

[OddNath]

I'm wondering if while the Step 1 may be harder, is it possible that it's not such a slog, not quite as annoying to study for because all the subject matter is related to the same theme that you've been immersed in for the preceding two years.

Any truth to this?

Actually, I kind of agree with this. For me, when I took the MCAT after soph yr of college, I hadn't had gen chem or bio since high school (AP credit), hadn't seen organic and physics since freshman year...so I was trying to piece together all this information that I either hadn't seen in years or never learned in the 1st place.

Whereas with Step 1, we had shelf exams in path/pharm/behavioral/phys dx right at the end of MS2, and so my 4 weeks of studying after that was very focused. In that last month of studying, there was very little material that I had never seen before-- it was mostly hammering in details on top of a pretty solid foundation.

 

[ucsb101]

I keep on hearing that oh there is a correlation between MCAT score and USMLE score. That if you did poorly on the MCAT you WILL do poorly on USMLE.

THis scared me cuz I didnt do too hot on the MCAT but got into an MD school. My friend didn't do too hot (25) got into a DO school and studied his ass off for the USMLE. He got his score last week ---> 237.

This tells you anything is possible!

 

[Law2Doc]

I keep on hearing that oh there is a correlation between MCAT score and USMLE score. That if you did poorly on the MCAT you WILL do poorly on USMLE.

There's a difference between correlation and predestination. Bear in mind that there is a (much stronger) correlation between smoking and lung cancer but that doesn't mean that every smoker will get lung cancer. Correlation just means that SOME people who do better or worse on one test will also do better or worse on the other, making the overall trend in the same general direction. It doesn't mean if you did poorly in one test, you are SOL and may as well throw in the towel. Nor does it mean that if you did well you are home free. There are actually quite a few high MCATers who do poorly on the Step and low MCATers who do solidly. But correlation purports to look at the group as a whole and so if out of 15,000 people a few more move one way rather than the other, you have your correlation.

It should be noted that back when the studies looking at MCAT vs Step 1 correlations were done, both tests were fairly different than they are now, as was the number of med schools, the composition of those med schools (eg. fewer women, nontrads, nonsci majors, etc), the kind of curriculum was very different (less clinical exposure, no PBL, different schedules), and the study resources were different (no qbank/world, FA). So it is hard to say that that data, derived in a study of science major males at a small subset of schools that existed at that time, who attended very different curriculum and studied from very different resources, is necessarilly all that valid today. The fact that top med schools are not exclusively accepting 40+ MCAT folks should tell you that adcoms are not completely convinced that this is a primary measure of success. Additionally, threads on this board describing non-top schools with presumably non-top MCAT scores but consistently high Step 1 scores probably should suggest that there are other factors at play.

Many med schools tell their students that the strongest predictor of your Step 1 score is how you do in the second year of med school, which makes sense to me given the temporal proximity and the fact that the material tends to be the highest yield.