Stress over grades in M1 and M2

[Nymphicus]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


Many (good) schools do not internally track percentage/letter grades during the preclinical years for rank/AOA purposes. These include UCSF, Columbia, Duke, UVA.

Some schools have grades for a part of the preclinical years (Penn, WashU, U Washington, Vanderbilt, UTSW, UNC) but do not track more discriminating grades for the pass/fail portion. At my institution, first year performance factors as 10% of your eventual class rank (thirds). However, if you pass all your classes, you get all that 10%. If you fail a class, obviously your rank should drop.

To the best of my knowledge, Hopkins, Northwestern, Baylor internally track discriminating grades during the preclinical years (="false" pass/fail).

A minor correction: Vanderbilt for the entering class of 2012 and beyond is unranked pass/fail for preclinical years.

 

[MilkIsGood]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

There are a few (good) schools that do not have AOA: Harvard, Stanford, Yale, UCSD. In addition, Hopkins' determination of AOA occurs after residency match, so it doesn't matter for residency applications.

Many (good) schools do not internally track percentage/letter grades during the preclinical years for rank/AOA purposes. These include UCSF, Columbia, Duke, UVA.

Some schools have grades for a part of the preclinical years (Penn, WashU, U Washington, Vanderbilt, UTSW, UNC) but do not track more discriminating grades for the pass/fail portion. At my institution, first year performance factors as 10% of your eventual class rank (thirds). However, if you pass all your classes, you get all that 10%. If you fail a class, obviously your rank should drop.

To the best of my knowledge, Hopkins, Northwestern, Baylor internally track discriminating grades during the preclinical years (="false" pass/fail).

I don't know, but would like to find out, what the AOA/ranking policies with regard to the pass/fail years are at Michigan, Chicago, UCLA, Pitt, Cornell, Mt Sinai, and Emory.

Mich and Pritzker: True p/f for pre clinicals. AOA status determined based on board scores and 3rd year grades (so no junior AOA)

 

[Lanolin]

MCG/GHSU relies solely on GPA to be able to qualify for AOA. After that Jr. AOA is reputation + board scores. Sr. AOA is reputation and all grades/evaluations.

On a side note: Get the best grades you can during the preclinical years. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fool, because the effort that you put into learning the material in the beginning will ultimately be reflected in your step 1 score. Good grades generally = much better scores on tests and clerkship NBME scores.

 

[NickNaylor]

MCG/GHSU relies solely on GPA to be able to qualify for AOA. After that Jr. AOA is reputation + board scores. Sr. AOA is reputation and all grades/evaluations.

On a side note: Get the best grades you can during the preclinical years. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fool, because the effort that you put into learning the material in the beginning will ultimately be reflected in your step 1 score. Good grades generally = much better scores on tests and clerkship NBME scores.

We'll see. I'll let you know how my sub-mean pre-clinical scores bear themselves out on step 1.

(sent from my phone)

 

[Titus Times]

unless ur mexican or black ... then u get in with a 3.3 and 30

Old post but idc.

Being a URM wont get you into top med schools with low GPA's genius. Im a URM and I wont be getting into harvard with a 3.3 and if I make it to harvard you will assume I did when infact I have a 3.93. How rude of you.

Simpleton 👎

 

[FIREitUP]

MCG/GHSU relies solely on GPA to be able to qualify for AOA. After that Jr. AOA is reputation + board scores. Sr. AOA is reputation and all grades/evaluations.

On a side note: Get the best grades you can during the preclinical years. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fool, because the effort that you put into learning the material in the beginning will ultimately be reflected in your step 1 score. Good grades generally = much better scores on tests and clerkship NBME scores.

I hope that no one here is implying not to work hard during the preclinical years. We are however, advocating that students take a look at what is emphasized on the boards and put more of a focus on studying that more high yield information. If you put a focus on the big picture, rather than minutiae, I believe it will lead to long term retention and will actually serve to improve your knowledge-base rather than detract from it.

 

[KnuxNole]

I hope that no one here is implying not to work hard during the preclinical years. We are however, advocating that students take a look at what is emphasized on the boards and put more of a focus on studying that more high yield information. If you put a focus on the big picture, rather than minutiae, I believe it will lead to long term retention and will actually serve to improve your knowledge-base rather than detract from it.

This.

Not everything in lecture is relevant to anything important in terms of clinical practice or for boards. It's sometimes possible for someone to know these minutiae really well, but struggle with critical thinking/board questions. There are some personal ancedotes I know of this.

Of course, I'm not dismissing the correlation. People who are naturally gifted or work very hard to get good grades are usually the same people who are naturally gifted or hardworking to rock the boards. However, just because someone is passing/high passing, it doesn't mean that they are screwed for Step 1.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

Old post but idc.

Being a URM wont get you into top med schools with low GPA's genius. Im a URM and I wont be getting into harvard with a 3.3 and if I make it to harvard you will assume I did when infact I have a 3.93. How rude of you.

Simpleton 👎

Obvious troll was obvious...to everyone except you.

 

[Titus Times]

Obvious troll was obvious...to everyone except you.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

Yeah I don't get it...

 

[Lanolin]

I hope that no one here is implying not to work hard during the preclinical years. We are however, advocating that students take a look at what is emphasized on the boards and put more of a focus on studying that more high yield information. If you put a focus on the big picture, rather than minutiae, I believe it will lead to long term retention and will actually serve to improve your knowledge-base rather than detract from it.

This.

Not everything in lecture is relevant to anything important in terms of clinical practice or for boards. It's sometimes possible for someone to know these minutiae really well, but struggle with critical thinking/board questions. There are some personal ancedotes I know of this.

Of course, I'm not dismissing the correlation. People who are naturally gifted or work very hard to get good grades are usually the same people who are naturally gifted or hardworking to rock the boards. However, just because someone is passing/high passing, it doesn't mean that they are screwed for Step 1.

There's a big difference between the guys who memorize random facts and those who truly understand the material. After taking step 1 and step 2, and doing quite well on them 😉. I can tell you that it's important to know a significant amount of minutiae and how it relates to patient care.

I did well in the preclinical years and I can tell you that there is no way I would be where I am today without having put the effort into learning and understanding the material from the first two years. If I was at a pure pass/fail institution I would not have had the same scores, clerkship evals, and LOR for residency. I wouldn't have been in the top 20% of my class either.

The kids with 250+ know a lot of medical information that other students like to call "minutiae." It makes studying for step exams a whole hell of a lot easier too.

 

[Zedor]

For those of you who strived to learn as much as possible during the preclinical years, are you referring to strictly the basic science courses or everything? By everything, I mean the "how to be a doctor" classes.

 

[Lanolin]

For those of you who strived to learn as much as possible during the preclinical years, are you referring to strictly the basic science courses or everything? By everything, I mean the "how to be a doctor" classes.

You learn how to be a doctor in the clinical years. The H&P + Physical diagnosis class is about the only decent material in the "doctor" classes during the preclinical years. Even then, you don't understand the physical diagnosis until you graduate medical school and get into residency. That's my opinion.

 

[KnuxNole]

I get what you mean Lanolin, there are certain minutiae that relate to medical information, that can show up on Step1/2. Sadly, there are some facts that aren't related(ie random research professors talk about due to egostroking).

 

[MCAT guy]

There's a big difference between the guys who memorize random facts and those who truly understand the material. After taking step 1 and step 2, and doing quite well on them 😉. I can tell you that it's important to know a significant amount of minutiae and how it relates to patient care.

I did well in the preclinical years and I can tell you that there is no way I would be where I am today without having put the effort into learning and understanding the material from the first two years. If I was at a pure pass/fail institution I would not have had the same scores, clerkship evals, and LOR for residency. I wouldn't have been in the top 20% of my class either.

The kids with 250+ know a lot of medical information that other students like to call "minutiae." It makes studying for step exams a whole hell of a lot easier too.

And you will hear opposite advice from people who did just as well or better than you. There are no rules. I realize your post was only about your experience so I'm just pointing it out for new students.

I remember one of the guys who recently matched vascular surgery saying that M1 and M2 were dull for him and being around the hospital and patients was a million times more interesting and motivating.

There is no single road to success people. Everyone who does well will tell you they have found the way, but there are many paths.

 

[nysw]

And journal club. 1.5 hr group presentation on a topic 👎

I'm not even going to sugar coat this...I hate journal club so much.

 

[notbobtrustme]

How do you turn it off for pre-clinical classes? I'd like to take it easier, but I can't find a way to actually do it.

 

[Kaustikos]

There's a big difference between the guys who memorize random facts and those who truly understand the material. After taking step 1 and step 2, and doing quite well on them 😉. I can tell you that it's important to know a significant amount of minutiae and how it relates to patient care.

I did well in the preclinical years and I can tell you that there is no way I would be where I am today without having put the effort into learning and understanding the material from the first two years. If I was at a pure pass/fail institution I would not have had the same scores, clerkship evals, and LOR for residency. I wouldn't have been in the top 20% of my class either.

The kids with 250+ know a lot of medical information that other students like to call "minutiae." It makes studying for step exams a whole hell of a lot easier too.

You're making assumptions here. I don't think anyone's saying don't try your hardest or just glide through w/o giving any ****s about what your grades are. The point I'm making is that grades are NOT reflective of an individuals intelligence in medical school or how well they'll perform on Step 1. There's also the fact that not getting the highest grades doesn't mean you're not bound for a great step 1 score. Read my examples and you'll see what I mean. When everyone in your class excels, how is anyone going to say that getting "average" grades is a determining factor in your success in Step 1?

If NickNaylor is in any position like mine, getting average/below average is simple synonymous with "Everyone is doing well".

 

[Zedor]

You're making assumptions here. I don't think anyone's saying don't try your hardest or just glide through w/o giving any ****s about what your grades are. The point I'm making is that grades are NOT reflective of an individuals intelligence in medical school or how well they'll perform on Step 1. There's also the fact that not getting the highest grades doesn't mean you're not bound for a great step 1 score. Read my examples and you'll see what I mean. When everyone in your class excels, how is anyone going to say that getting "average" grades is a determining factor in your success in Step 1?

If NickNaylor is in any position like mine, getting average/below average is simple synonymous with "Everyone is doing well".

I think this is where the "tiers" of medical school come into play. For those familiar with Nick, it would seem outrageous for him not to be at the top of the curve. Coming from a non top tier, and consistently scoring at the top, I believe there's a huge difference between knowledge level when comparing to the mean scores. This appears to not be the case at the top schools.

 

[ArcGurren]

There's a big difference between the guys who memorize random facts and those who truly understand the material. After taking step 1 and step 2, and doing quite well on them 😉. I can tell you that it's important to know a significant amount of minutiae and how it relates to patient care.

I did well in the preclinical years and I can tell you that there is no way I would be where I am today without having put the effort into learning and understanding the material from the first two years. If I was at a pure pass/fail institution I would not have had the same scores, clerkship evals, and LOR for residency. I wouldn't have been in the top 20% of my class either.

The kids with 250+ know a lot of medical information that other students like to call "minutiae." It makes studying for step exams a whole hell of a lot easier too.

I have a 250+. The minutiae in M1/M2 got me maybe 2 or 3 questions on my step 1 total, and it was sheer luck. It did not bump me from a 235 to a 250 though. Anyone who says as much is full of it. The questions I got wrong were definitely within the review material that's standard for step 1 (FA, UW, Kaplan, etc), not some BS basic science stuff.

I also have done well on Step 1 and Step 2 and my experience is totally and utterly different from yours. Quit preaching it like it's the ultimate truth.

 

[ArcGurren]

You're making assumptions here. I don't think anyone's saying don't try your hardest or just glide through w/o giving any ****s about what your grades are. The point I'm making is that grades are NOT reflective of an individuals intelligence in medical school or how well they'll perform on Step 1. There's also the fact that not getting the highest grades doesn't mean you're not bound for a great step 1 score. Read my examples and you'll see what I mean. When everyone in your class excels, how is anyone going to say that getting "average" grades is a determining factor in your success in Step 1?

If NickNaylor is in any position like mine, getting average/below average is simple synonymous with "Everyone is doing well".

Agreed with this. I think how much you study for step 1 irrespective of what your grades are will help translate towards a good score. I got terrible grades in M1, great grades in M2, and I focused on learning the material - not working towards Honors in every class by obsessively memorizing lectures. That would likely have put me at a disadvantage - I spent my free study time beyond what was necessary towards doing UW questions and reading FA in a long-term preparation scheme.

 

[MCAT guy]

I have a 250+. The minutiae in M1/M2 got me maybe 2 or 3 questions on my step 1 total, and it was sheer luck. It did not bump me from a 235 to a 250 though. Anyone who says as much is full of it. The questions I got wrong were definitely within the review material that's standard for step 1 (FA, UW, Kaplan, etc), not some BS basic science stuff.

I also have done well on Step 1 and Step 2 and my experience is totally and utterly different from yours. Quit preaching it like it's the ultimate truth.

Great post.

 

[fahimaz7]

I have a 250+. The minutiae in M1/M2 got me maybe 2 or 3 questions on my step 1 total, and it was sheer luck. It did not bump me from a 235 to a 250 though. Anyone who says as much is full of it. The questions I got wrong were definitely within the review material that's standard for step 1 (FA, UW, Kaplan, etc), not some BS basic science stuff.

I also have done well on Step 1 and Step 2 and my experience is totally and utterly different from yours. Quit preaching it like it's the ultimate truth.

I'm with Lanolin on this one. With a 250+/270+ on step 1/2 and great clerkship scores I can also say that focusing on the material provided by the faculty at my medical school is what helped build a strong foundation for step 1 and the transition to the clinical clerkships. A lot of my classmates decided to blow off the curriculum, particularly during the MS2 year, in order to "focus" on step 1 prep, and the result for many of them was sub-par performances on step 1. After talking to many of them and even tutoring a few of the classes below me, I believe that many of these students failed to probe deep enough on many of the diseases and disease processes and never fully integrated the material and were able to apply the principles when the time came.

I've seen Arc on here for a long time and he has obviously done well in medical school, but one thing you can be sure of is that he knows a lot of the crap that people label as "minutiae" during the pre-clinical years. The bitch about it is that you don't know what the minutiae is until your sitting in-front of the computer and finishing the last block of you ~320 questions on step 1.

Don't handicap yourself before you even get to the test.

My 2-cents. Don't really care if anyone takes it or not.

 

[ArcGurren]

I'm with Lanolin on this one. With a 250+/270+ on step 1/2 and great clerkship scores I can also say that focusing on the material provided by the faculty at my medical school is what helped build a strong foundation for step 1 and the transition to the clinical clerkships. A lot of my classmates decided to blow off the curriculum, particularly during the MS2 year, in order to "focus" on step 1 prep, and the result for many of them was sub-par performances on step 1. After talking to many of them and even tutoring a few of the classes below me, I believe that many of these students failed to probe deep enough on many of the diseases and disease processes and never fully integrated the material and were able to apply the principles when the time came.

I've seen Arc on here for a long time and he has obviously done well in medical school, but one thing you can be sure of is that he knows a lot of the crap that people label as "minutiae" during the pre-clinical years. The bitch about it is that you don't know what the minutiae is until your sitting in-front of the computer and finishing the last block of you ~320 questions on step 1.

Don't handicap yourself before you even get to the test.

My 2-cents. Don't really care if anyone takes it or not.

As flattered as I am, I wish I really did know a lot of the minutiae from M1/M2. Most of the "minutiae" that I know is from sources like First Aid and Kaplan qbank. Look, did the step 1 test random minutiae? Sure - I had a few questions here and there about which gene does this, which chromosome is this gene on, which translocation is the worst for this lymphoma, etc. All of which was covered in review material with very few exceptions for maybe 2 or 3 questions. Most of what I think is fundamental to doing well on Step 1 anyway is understanding the concept and physiology of something so that if you get a question you don't immediately know the answer to, you can at least reason out a good guess at the answer.

I think M1/M2 classes DO lay a good fundamental basis for the knowledge that is required to do well on step 1. I think it's unnecessary to go on memorization sprees which involve getting tested on whatever the PhD lecturer thinks is important because he's doing his research in it. I don't know what those students in your class did who shot themselves in the foot, but it sounds like they had bigger issues with their study strategy than simply not doing well enough in M1/M2 classes.

BTW, saw your score in the Step 2 thread. Mighty good achievement!

 

[Zedor]

As flattered as I am, I wish I really did know a lot of the minutiae from M1/M2. Most of the "minutiae" that I know is from sources like First Aid and Kaplan qbank. Look, did the step 1 test random minutiae? Sure - I had a few questions here and there about which gene does this, which chromosome is this gene on, which translocation is the worst for this lymphoma, etc. All of which was covered in review material with very few exceptions for maybe 2 or 3 questions. Most of what I think is fundamental to doing well on Step 1 anyway is understanding the concept and physiology of something so that if you get a question you don't immediately know the answer to, you can at least reason out a good guess at the answer.

I think M1/M2 classes DO lay a good fundamental basis for the knowledge that is required to do well on step 1. I think it's unnecessary to go on memorization sprees which involve getting tested on whatever the PhD lecturer thinks is important because he's doing his research in it. I don't know what those students in your class did who shot themselves in the foot, but it sounds like they had bigger issues with their study strategy than simply not doing well enough in M1/M2 classes.

BTW, saw your score in the Step 2 thread. Mighty good achievement!

It's easier to categorize what might be minutiae in hindsight, but as you're going thru the courses, things don't really jump out as NOT BOARD RELEVANT. Are the little things you found in first aid during your dedicated study time the same things you blew off as irrelevant during M1/M2? I ask this as I don't have the experience of having taken step 1 yet, and am trying to better understand what you are saying.

 

[ijn]

I don't understand this fad of obscuring your STEP 1 score in increments of 10. Stop being a ***** and just say the three digit score.

I got a 269 and working my ass off for the first 2 years was a big part of it. It built a sustainable level of academic discipline. It made studying a hell of a lot easier when things were familiar and I already had some background knowledge to build upon.

 

[ijn]

It's easier to categorize what might be minutiae in hindsight, but as you're going thru the courses, things don't really jump out as NOT BOARD RELEVANT. Are the little things you found in first aid during your dedicated study time the same things you blew off as irrelevant during M1/M2? I ask this as I don't have the experience of having taken step 1 yet, and am trying to better understand what you are saying.

Things really do jump out at you after a while. You know it when you see it. It's hard to give you a specific formula for NOT BOARD RELEVANT vs HIGH YIELD KNOW THIS ****. Generally it's important to know the physical presentation, diagnostic tests, and causes associated with whatever you're studying. The rest tends to be useless (test wise) bull****.

Say you're getting a MS2 pathology lecture on acute pancreatitis and the lecturer wants you to memorize Ranson's criteria. That's the kind of **** that doesn't show up on STEP 1.

 

[fahimaz7]

I don't understand this fad of obscuring your STEP 1 score in increments of 10. Stop being a ***** and just say the three digit score.

I got a 269 and working my ass off for the first 2 years was a big part of it. It built a sustainable level of academic discipline. It made studying a hell of a lot easier when things were familiar and I already had some background knowledge to build upon.

There aren't many people with my scores applying to the field that I'm headed into.. hence the hesitance to give specifics on the net. Since there's prob <40 people in the country with a 269 on the dot, perhaps you should also consider this practice when the time comes to apply for residency and the such.

🙂

Glad we agree though that the first two years help build a foundation to connect the dots during the dedicated time period.

 

[FIREitUP]

I'm with Lanolin on this one. With a 250+/270+ on step 1/2 and great clerkship scores I can also say that focusing on the material provided by the faculty at my medical school is what helped build a strong foundation for step 1 and the transition to the clinical clerkships. A lot of my classmates decided to blow off the curriculum, particularly during the MS2 year, in order to "focus" on step 1 prep, and the result for many of them was sub-par performances on step 1. After talking to many of them and even tutoring a few of the classes below me, I believe that many of these students failed to probe deep enough on many of the diseases and disease processes and never fully integrated the material and were able to apply the principles when the time came.

I've seen Arc on here for a long time and he has obviously done well in medical school, but one thing you can be sure of is that he knows a lot of the crap that people label as "minutiae" during the pre-clinical years. The bitch about it is that you don't know what the minutiae is until your sitting in-front of the computer and finishing the last block of you ~320 questions on step 1.

Don't handicap yourself before you even get to the test.

My 2-cents. Don't really care if anyone takes it or not.

You are confusing not studying crappily taught lectures by PhD's/MD's with not studying in depth. I would argue that when you study the material on your own you are more able to find these connections. Let's face it, path lecturers steal their crap from Robbins, Micro can be learned better from flashcards/CMMRS, pharm is pure memorization, etc. Why waste my time deciphering sanskrit in a path lecture when I have Goljan, Robbins, and Pathoma to teach it to me in english?

 

[MCAT guy]

All I've learned is that there are many ways to success.

 

[ArcGurren]

It's easier to categorize what might be minutiae in hindsight, but as you're going thru the courses, things don't really jump out as NOT BOARD RELEVANT. Are the little things you found in first aid during your dedicated study time the same things you blew off as irrelevant during M1/M2? I ask this as I don't have the experience of having taken step 1 yet, and am trying to better understand what you are saying.

They do jump out sometimes. There's often times where you can hear the voice in the back of your head screaming "man, this sounds like BS". For the most part it was pretty reliable for me but I can understand if it's less so for folks. To each their own.

 

[KnuxNole]

The random research some phD tells you shouts out at you that it's egostroking. Unless someone had a Step 1 question about some strange esoteric research noone else cares about 😱

 

[rocketbooster]

not any more it ain't. Step 1 average for the first nine months of 2012 was 227.

I mentioned before that we aren't ranked here. There are some people who feel that we should be. You would be surprised who these people are (ie, not just the ones who would be at the very top of the class)

Says who? I took mine in June and it was 224. The ppl who took it in April had a 222 average. Considering the overwhelming majority of kids take in the first half of the year, there's no way the last 3 months boosted the year's average to 227. The last 3 months average would have to be like a 235+ (considering the shorter time frame and far fewer students taking it during those months) to boost the average to 227 over 9 months. Sorry, sir, your made-up numbers have been proven wrong by us recent test takers.

However, Step 2 averages are much different. Recent Step 2 CK averages were ~233. That's typical of Step 2 and is a major reason why everyone does better on Step 2.

 

[fahimaz7]

Says who? I took mine in June and it was 224. The ppl who took it in April had a 222 average. Considering the overwhelming majority of kids take in the first half of the year, there's no way the last 3 months boosted the year's average to 227. The last 3 months average would have to be like a 235+ (considering the shorter time frame and far fewer students taking it during those months) to boost the average to 227 over 9 months. Sorry, sir, your made-up numbers have been proven wrong by us recent test takers.

However, Step 2 averages are much different. Recent Step 2 CK averages were ~233. That's typical of Step 2 and is a major reason why everyone does better on Step 2.

237 for me in August.

 

[45408]

237 for me in August.

Methinks you didn't need to study as much as you did for Step 2.

 

[GadRads]

I figured I would rant this on here... since my entire class seems to be preoccupied with grades right now. I think once we realize that the difference between a 75 and a 95 on a transcript doesn't exist, then people will simmer down. Right now though, people are still pretty intense.

My school is a pure pass/fail, however they do give out awards for the top mark in a class. Otherwise, our transcripts and our MSPR do not reflect any percentiles/ranking.

A lot of the material we are learning is basic science... with some clinical pearls mixed in. We get a lot of facts thrown at us and we're expected to assimilate.

But I know from talking to upper years and residents that what you learn in the classroom isn't going to help you treat patients all that much.

For those that are not on a pass fail system, I am truly sorry. Because that's not what medicine should be about.

👍

I attend Howard Med, and we have the H-P-F system. However I would still prefer to honor most courses, but a few 3rd years I have spoken with (240-260+ step I) have echoed the sentiments here that it's far more important to honor 3rd and 4th year and get good Step I scores. As a result I don't have too much stress about grades--the aim is to just to learn the material as well as I can and do very well.

 

[MCAT guy]

Methinks you didn't need to study as much as you did for Step 2.

I think he said he was going into emergency, so you're probably right.

 

[fahimaz7]

Methinks you didn't need to study as much as you did for Step 2.

Interestingly enough I dedicated 20 days to studying and didn't take a single practice test. Was trying to stay over a 250 and apparently made the right guesses. Felt the test was hard tbh.

 

[fahimaz7]

I think he said he was going into emergency, so you're probably right.

Just like all the specialties, matching into the more competitive places requires very strong board scores, clerkship grades, evals, letters, etc and sleeping with someone in power.

 

[MCAT guy]

Just like all the specialties, matching into the more competitive places in EM requires very strong board scores, clerkship grades, evals, letters, etc and sleeping with someone in power.

True. Good luck.

 

[45408]

Interestingly enough I dedicated 20 days to studying and didn't take a single practice test. Was trying to stay over a 250 and apparently made the right guesses. Felt the test was hard tbh.

Most people would say 20 days is more than enough. I think I did about 10 days, and that was for CK and CS, which I took back-to-back. Not pleasant.

 

[fahimaz7]

Most people would say 20 days is more than enough. I think I did about 10 days, and that was for CK and CS, which I took back-to-back. Not pleasant.

I didn't do Uworld during the year, so it took me 20 or so days to get through it when the time came. That's all the prep I did.

 

[FIREitUP]

I didn't do Uworld during the year, so it took me 20 or so days to get through it when the time came. That's all the prep I did.

 

[MCAT guy]

I didn't do Uworld during the year, so it took me 20 or so days to get through it when the time came. That's all the prep I did.

A friend of mine with a similar step 1 score only studied a week and had similar step 1 /step 2 scores (both 250s). No one ever asks about time preparing but it probably helps to dedicate twice as much time to a test. Circling back to the idea of learning everything during M1/M2. People allocate time very differently based on personality and career goals.

 

[fahimaz7]

Don't worry. You'll soon realize what we are talking about when you take step 1 and then step 2. UWorld is the minimum for anyone who actually needs to have a decent score on these tests. Some people do Uworld during the year and then blow through it right before they take step 2 (a second pass). Others hold off until the month of the test to get acquainted to the material. 20 days is the minimum time that I can do 2300 questions. I can't even begin to tell you how much studying for step 2 sucks.

Good luck during your second year though and with step 1 in the spring.

 

[FIREitUP]

Don't worry. You'll soon realize what we are talking about when you take step 1 and then step 2. UWorld is the minimum for anyone who actually needs to have a decent score on these tests. Some people do Uworld during the year and then blow through it right before they take step 2 (a second pass). Others hold off until the month of the test to get acquainted to the material. 20 days is the minimum time that I can do 2300 questions. I can't even begin to tell you how much studying for step 2 sucks.

Good luck during your second year though and with step 1 in the spring.

I realize what you're talking about. I'm just mocking your shameless, unsolicited post of your Step 2 score.

 

[fahimaz7]

I realize what you're talking about. I'm just mocking your shameless, unsolicited post of your Step 2 score.

yea. I didn't mean to include the score. it was an old picture on my Photobucket account, and I didn't see that it had my score. The step 1 pic that was on there didn't have the scorecard just the average score comments. I think the arrow to change pictures covered the score 🙁

 

[FIREitUP]

yea. I didn't mean to include the score. it was an old picture on my Photobucket account, and I didn't see that it had my score. The step 1 pic that was on there didn't have the scorecard just the average score comments. I think the arrow to change pictures covered the score 🙁

wow now I feel like a jerk, haha. anyways congrats and good luck on your interviews

 

[semicharmed]

This is a great discussion. Just thought I'd add my own experience. I go to a P/F, purely unranked school that doesn't give out AOA placements until after residency interviews (which I like). At points, it does seem a little too much-they really try to not make a competitive environment here (and it works really well; so far our class is super close, we have like 4-5 shares of notes/materials a day, which is actually a little too much haha).

What I've heard from my friends at other schools is that it's always a nice thing to have on your resume about AOA, grades, etc, to distinguish you from hundreds of candidates competing for tiny amounts of slots, but that it's more like the icing on the cake than anything else.

I wouldn't worry too much about preclinical-like everyone said, it's mostly Step I, recs, etc. If anything, it might be worth investing more time in a lab and getting a solid mentor than getting 10 spots up in your class list.

Didn't say anything too radical, but just thought I'd join in! Hope everyone is enjoying their fall.

 

[username456789]

There's a big difference between the guys who memorize random facts and those who truly understand the material. After taking step 1 and step 2, and doing quite well on them 😉. I can tell you that it's important to know a significant amount of minutiae and how it relates to patient care.

I did well in the preclinical years and I can tell you that there is no way I would be where I am today without having put the effort into learning and understanding the material from the first two years. If I was at a pure pass/fail institution I would not have had the same scores, clerkship evals, and LOR for residency. I wouldn't have been in the top 20% of my class either.

The kids with 250+ know a lot of medical information that other students like to call "minutiae." It makes studying for step exams a whole hell of a lot easier too.

This.