Top 10 boards studying mistakes

[myrtle]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Since I'd rather not learn from experience (in other words, have to take it again!) I'd like to hear what mistakes you've made or you've seen others make in boards prep. Top 10 just for fun. 🙂

 

[SOUNDMAN]

I think trying to use too many review books to study. Most people that do well, use just a few sources and know them flat out cold.

 

[UCLAstudent]

Not giving yourself a day off every now and then. I took 1 day off/week.

STARTING your review by using First Aid --- I did this and it was very frustrating. You can't really appreciate First Aid until you've reviewed the material in depth ahead of time.

Doing question banks without putting some effort into reviewing the answers.

Getting freaked out/pressured by classmates or SDN to use certain books. Pick one book and stick with it.

 

[tony montana]

Not doing an NBME exam before starting to prep and before the exam.

 

[Law2Doc]

Since I'd rather not learn from experience (in other words, have to take it again!) I'd like to hear what mistakes you've made or you've seen others make in boards prep. Top 10 just for fun. 🙂

Here's a couple:

1. The biggest mistake IMHO is people tend to spend too much time studying the subjects they enjoy the most, and avoid the ones they enjoy the least. You need to reverse this. If you hate biochem, you need to spend a larger percentage of time on biochem than the things you liked.

2. Starting studying too early -- if you start studying 6 months before the test you may need to relearn everything you learned in the beginning couple of months -- the value after 6-8 weeks tends to drop off pretty precipitously.

3. People who study eg 12 hours/day for 40 days with no breaks are probably not going to assimilate the info as well as folks who take a day or an evening off every week. I don't know why this is, but it just seems to work out this way.

4. People who rush to do lots of problems but don't spend adequate time reading the explanations of what they got wrong (or even right) are mis-using the resource. Do tons of problems in tutor mode. The goal is to learn from these problems, even if it means you only get through 50 a day instead of 150.

5. Work on timing. The real test questions are a LOT longer than you see on qbank/world. If it takes you the whole 60 minutes to do 50 problems on world, you are not going fast enough for the real thing.

Edit: Oops -- I see UCLA student already listed two of my suggestions.

 

[deuist]

The biggest mistake is not studying enough during first and second year. If you've got a good foundation going into your 6-week study binge, you'll be better able to review everything.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Here's a couple:

5. Work on timing. The real test questions are a LOT longer than you see on qbank/world. If it takes you the whole 60 minutes to do 50 problems on world, you are not going fast enough for the real thing.

I'm not too sure about this one, it took me a lot longer to do Uworld questions than real step 1 questions. Uworld hits you with one hard one after another while on the real exam you'll get gimme questions much more often. I think if you are able to do Uworld timed you are set for the real thing.

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

The biggest mistake is not studying enough during first and second year. If you've got a good foundation going into your 6-week study binge, you'll be better able to review everything.

*High5*

I think another big problem is "assumed" knowledge. There are a lot of things you THINK you know that you really don't know. For example, I know I was very guilty of this first and second year. I'd look at a chart like "Most common causes of meningitis in different groups" and recognize one or two classic ones and think "Oh yeah, I know this" and then skip along to the next topic. The problem was, I didn't know it COLD and so when I get fired a question on one of the parts of the chart I was shaky on, I'd flub it up or waste time trying to remember.

So my advice is, PROVE TO YOURSELF that you know it. When you have to know what the second messenger is for different signals, don't just say "Oh yeah, I kinda remember that". Ask yourself "Okay, what does Beta 2 use? What does Alpha one use?" and make yourself answer to ensure that you really DO know it.

 

[Law2Doc]

I'm not too sure about this one, it took me a lot longer to do Uworld questions than real step 1 questions. Uworld hits you with one hard one after another while on the real exam you'll get gimme questions much more often. I think if you are able to do Uworld timed you are set for the real thing.

Maybe I just got unlucky with my set of questions. But I found that the paragraphs were significantly longer on the real thing. I still think pacing yourself to have time to spare on World is a useful suggestion.

 

[SoCuteMD]

cchanging your game plan/study habits

 

[mules05]

1. The biggest mistake IMHO is people tend to spend too much time studying the subjects they enjoy the most, and avoid the ones they enjoy the least. You need to reverse this. If you hate biochem, you need to spend a larger percentage of time on biochem than the things you liked.

This is good advice, but with some possible exceptions, at least for me. I sized up the subjects I was weakest or strongest in and added extra time for, say, neuro, which I'm very weak in but which is fairly well represented on step 1. On the other hand, though, I'm very weak in anatomy as well, but the amount of time it would have taken me to really know it well wasn't worth it for how much anatomy is on step 1, so I took less time and just focused on a few areas. I'm very strong in pharm, but instead of taking less time, I spent some extra time with that, reviewing basics, equations, etc as well as just drugs and side effects. In the end I think it paid off- I had maybe one anatomy question on my exam and easily 3 questions involving the creatinine clearance equation. However, this worked out for me because my strong area was one of the most represented topics on step 1. If these had been reversed- had I been strong in anatomy and weak in pharm- following the above strategy would not have worked as well.

 

[blz]

Although the questions were longer on the real test, they were quicker for me to get through because the questions were easier in comparison to USMLEworld.

I did 6wks 12hrs/day no breaks because that was best for me. I didn't really need any days off. I always made sure though I was studying in an area with some of my friends around. We always made sure to goof one some time of the day, usually during lunch and dinner. That kept my sanity.

 

[Law2Doc]

This is good advice, but with some possible exceptions, at least for me. I sized up the subjects I was weakest or strongest in and added extra time for, say, neuro, which I'm very weak in but which is fairly well represented on step 1. On the other hand, though, I'm very weak in anatomy as well, but the amount of time it would have taken me to really know it well wasn't worth it for how much anatomy is on step 1, so I took less time and just focused on a few areas. I'm very strong in pharm, but instead of taking less time, I spent some extra time with that, reviewing basics, equations, etc as well as just drugs and side effects. In the end I think it paid off- I had maybe one anatomy question on my exam and easily 3 questions involving the creatinine clearance equation. However, this worked out for me because my strong area was one of the most represented topics on step 1. If these had been reversed- had I been strong in anatomy and weak in pharm- following the above strategy would not have worked as well.

That's fair. But we all know folks who are strong at, say, micro and weak at pharm (both significantly represented) but spend an equal or greater time reviewing the micro because they like micro better, rather than grind through the duller stuff with equal fervor. You have to embrace your dislikes. But of course higher yield needs to get more time than lower yield. I certainly wouldn't advocate two weeks of embryology etc.

 

[mules05]

That's fair. But we all know folks who are strong at, say, micro and weak at pharm (but significantly represented) but spend an equal or greater time reviewing the micro because they like micro better, rather than grind through the duller stuff with equal fervor. You have to embrace your dislikes. But of course higher yield needs to get more time than lower yield. I certainly wouldn't advocate two weeks of embryology etc.

Agreed. 👍

 

[osli]

I'm not sure that "starting" your preparation too early is really possible (or that bad, if it is possible). Worst case is that you have seen the material one more time before your 6 week intense preparation begins, and we all know repetition is one proven way to retain those pesky factoids/tables/etc. (there are others).

In my case, my school uses a systems based curriculum. This is great for teaching most things, but I've found biochem hard to learn this way. I think it's because we only get a couple of biochem lectures per system, and while they seem easy enough to learn in isolation and no problem on the section exams, I just haven't "gotten" it as far as the big picture is concerned. So I've started going through a biochem review resource, and that has really helped me connect the various bits and pieces into one coherent story.

FYI, I really like the systems based approach - it seems to get it right for 90% (made up number) of stuff... but that other 10% might be better to see as a subject, not a system. Sort of like how FA has some subject stuff at the beginning before systems based sections. Or it could just be that due to my weak background in biochem I especially suck at that and need more review. 🙂