value in redoing old questions

[swtiepie711]

---

Members don't see this ad.

so of the qbank I've been doing, I've always done new questions (no repeats). Is there a value in repeating old questions? Part of me thinks it still tests you (i.e. redoing embryo questions, especially since there are so few of them); but then I also think that just pure recall isn't quite "learning" (i.e. "I remember the answer to this one was A. x-y-z"). Do you guys usually avoid repeating questions? do incorrect questions in separate blocks?

I guess I just feel like, going on the embryo route, I don't know embryo well but with only 46 questions in Qbank about it, I'm not sure if that means "know these 46 questions & you're good" (which would argue to go over & over them until you're getting them all right & know WHY the answer is right) or "know these 46 questions and you only know a fraction of what they could test you on"...... thanks for any thoughts

 

[pseudoknot]

The thing about UW questions is that there is usually a lot more information in the answer than you need just to answer that one question. If you knew all the info in the explanations for those 46 embryo questions, that would be a lot better than just knowing the answers are a,d,c,a,e...But I think the latter is all you would get from doing the same questions over and over.

 

[swtiepie711]

I agree, but I mean not just blindly doing & repeating questions. If a person were to (again, keeping w/ embryo theme) - do all the embryo questions in a block, then go over them all - ones they got right & ones they got wrong, going over all the answer choices. Then sometime in the future, do it again - being able to look at the question and r/o answer choices - like taking the time to tell yourself why they are wrong/right consciously instead of blindly clicking.

I guess it's just hard for any of us to say that doing well on a qbank has any bearing on how you'll do on the real section of usmle, especially for subjects for which there aren't a lot of questions (embryo, behavioral, molec bio, histo, etc) - but I guess those are "low yield" anyways....

Is this how pp use UW to learn? not by repeating, but is the theory if you knew WHY every UW answer choice was right/wrong from reading all the explanations in its entirety you'd be a step in the right direction for the real deal? Random thoughts as I try to study...

 

[pseudoknot]

Yeah, I think you learn partly by going through the process of thinking about the questions and how to answer them repeatedly, but also by reading the explanations. I'm sure if you packaged all the UW explanations together they would make a pretty decent size review book.

 

[Richspiders07]

When i got to the point where i needed to repeat questions, I didn't remember answers b/c i remembered it from previous times. I tended to think "oh, i think this is the answer b/c of X Y Z reason".. so as long as you are thinking through the questions/answers, I'd say you can repeat them.. no problem.

 

[Captopril]

Yeah, I think you learn partly by going through the process of thinking about the questions and how to answer them repeatedly, but also by reading the explanations. I'm sure if you packaged all the UW explanations together they would make a pretty decent size review book.

I just started UW a couple days ago, and already have a significant addition to my anatomy knowledge base just from doing about 50-60 questions. The explanations seem like pure gold, because they go to the very root of the principle being tested (at least for anatomy/embryology...haven't done any other subjects yet). So, yes, a UW review book would actually be a nice idea.