Value of Average Step I Score

[BillrothI]

Hey Everybody,

This has been addressed a few times, but I'm still a bit confused:

Why isn't the average Step 1 score at a particular school a good indicator of the effectiveness of the pre-clinical curriculum?

I understand that success on Step 1 is largely the result of self-study and that there is often some "creative accounting" involved when it comes to schools reporting their Step 1 average. However, I've also observed the following:

School A:
Average GPA: 3.70
Average MCAT score: 32
Average Step 1 score: 226

School B:
Average GPA: 3.68
Average MCAT score: 30
Average Step 1 score: 235

Assuming that all schools are going to similarly calculate (or massage) the numbers in such a way as to arrive at the highest Step 1 average possible, can't the discrepancy be attributed to the curriculum? Or is there a major variable that I'm missing here?

Thanks for any input!

-Bill

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ridethecliche]

Plot twist, school B is in the carib.

 

[Pacna]

Agreed. This info is not published. And as a result, many med schools use that as a license to lie. Or not so much lie, but rephrase the question so they can answer a certain way. Some places are above average, some claim to be above average for US schools, some say above average over the last X years, some only include retakes when calculating their scores so they can claim to be at or above average, etc. etc. So ignore this info.

The whole reason it's not distributed is because schools as a group want you to ignore it. If you didn't, it would tie their hands in terms of quality teaching (experimental things, like clinical correlations, PBL, virtual labs, etc), and they would be forced to "teach to the boards" like the offshore schools do, out of fear that deviating from the group might somehow result in lower scores and a loss of competitive rankings. Most agree (including the NBME who writes the boards) that the boards are a terrible yardstick for quality of education, that the schools that focus on these are really only doing half their job, and that the boards are only meant to test for a desired minimum for licensing (which is why 90% of US students pass). As a result, no school wants to have as their primary target the boards, and have their hands tied to have to produce scores that undergrads are going to rely on as evidence of a "better" school -- the schools want to focus on things that are actually important.

Additionally, it's not very likely that the schools have much to do with board scores. Everyone covers the same material, everyone uses the same review books and same question banks. So how you do on the boards has very little to do with anything your school does and a ton to do with how much effort you put in and how good your memory and study skills are. So to the extent some schools score better, they are winning or losing this battle in admissions -- the person with the same abilities and work ethic should do about the same regardless of what school he attends. The boards are very external to the school. Most schools don't offer any review for them, and no schools won't cover all of the material you will ultimately see on the boards. So the dude who is going to get a 260 shouldn't care what school he is going to go to -- it's the school who selects for him more than is involved in getting him to that point.

Best to ignore this. Pick schools for useful factors, not ones that they are happy to take credit for but won't have anything to do with.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/average-usmle-step-1-scores-by-school.621835/

 

[NickNaylor]

Hey Everybody,

This has been addressed a few times, but I'm still a bit confused:

Why isn't the average Step I score at a particular school a good indicator of the effectiveness of the pre-clinical curriculum?

I understand that success on Step I is largely the result of self-study and that there is often some "creative accounting" involved when it comes to schools reporting their Step I average. However, I've also observed the following:

School A:
Average GPA: 3.70
Average MCAT score: 32
Average Step I score: 226

School B:
Average GPA: 3.68
Average MCAT score: 30
Average Step I score: 235

Assuming that all schools are going to similarly calculate (or massage) the numbers in such a way as to arrive at the highest Step I average possible, can't the discrepancy be attributed to the curriculum? Or is there a major variable that I'm missing here?

Thanks for any input!

-Bill

The most important driver for step 1 performance is your own individual motivation, effort, and performance.

 

[breakintheroof]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/average-usmle-step-1-scores-by-school.621835/

While this is a good post, things have changed since the time that it was written in 2009, and there is now a source of board scores: The US News Compass subscription. I am guessing that OP's numbers come from there.

The most important driver for step 1 performance is your own individual motivation, effort, and performance.

OP acknowledges this--I think he wants someone to say something like, "External factors are the cause of this disparity, not the curriculum," or "The disparity doesn't actually exist," or "While the disparity may exist due to the curriculum, it is so small that it could be at most a tiny factor in your decision."

I understand that success on Step I is largely the result of self-study...

Edited to add: OP, I have linked to this before, here's someone (@chronicidal) who looked for "value-added" in medical schools along the lines of what you wrote. (I am just a fellow applicant, so I can't say I endorse or dispute any of this.)

 

[NickNaylor]

I would answer, "while the disparity may exist due to the curriculum, it is so small that it could be at most a tiny factor in your decision." I wouldn't use average step 1 scores to sway my decision in any meaningful way.

Also, with respect to chronicidal's posts, I would be weary of them. He/she has an extremely strange obsession with comparing things and attempting to explain everything with quantifiable metrics. Ultimately I think that ends up resulting in trends which are, at best, a stretch and, at worst, completely useless.

 

[darkjedi]

While I don't believe the differences in pre-clinical content is particularly large, I do think that schools that have an accelerated 1.5 curriculum and Step 1 after your clinical year have a distinct advantage.

Baylor, Vanderbilt, Columbia, and Penn consistently have some of the highest average Step 1 scores. A lot of it is due to pre-selection, but as someone who has the benefit of clinical year before Step 1, I do believe it helps.

 

[NickNaylor]

While I don't believe the differences in pre-clinical content is particularly large, I do think that schools that have an accelerated 1.5 curriculum and Step 1 after your clinical year have a distinct advantage.

Baylor, Vanderbilt, Columbia, and Penn consistently have some of the highest average Step 1 scores. A lot of it is due to pre-selection, but as someone who has the benefit of clinical year before Step 1, I do believe it helps.

Have you taken step 1 yet? If not, I'd be curious about your opinion afterward.

I used to agree with that thought process, but thinking back on it I'm not so sure. On the one hand, having a good amount of clinical knowledge might make the content of step 1 a little more easily organized and fitted within your existing knowledge base. On the other hand, the material for step 1 is, in many cases, so irrelevant to regular clinical practice that I imagine you'll have to do a ton of relearning to drop down to that "level." That said, perhaps the disadvantage of the latter is outweighed by the advantage of the former.

 

[godawg300]

Schools give different amounts of time to study for step 1. This might be something to look into. Also, some schools teach towards the boards.

 

[darkjedi]

Have you taken step 1 yet? If not, I'd be curious about your opinion afterward.

I used to agree with that thought process, but thinking back on it I'm not so sure. On the one hand, having a good amount of clinical knowledge might make the content of step 1 a little more easily organized and fitted within your existing knowledge base. On the other hand, the material for step 1 is, in many cases, so irrelevant to regular clinical practice that I imagine you'll have to do a ton of relearning to drop down to that "level." That said, perhaps the disadvantage of the latter is outweighed by the advantage of the former.

I am in the middle of studying for it, but it is hard to compare to an experience that I did not personally have. I do agree with you that the biggest factor to your score is your own personal effort. There is certainly a significant amount of re-learning, but for me personally, as someone who struggles with rote memorization, I am grateful for the additional time, knowledge base and scaffolding I have from clinics.

 

[NickNaylor]

I am in the middle of studying for it, but it is hard to compare to an experience that I did not personally have. I do agree with you that the biggest factor to your score is your own personal effort. There is certainly a significant amount of re-learning, but for me personally, as someone who struggles with rote memorization, I am grateful for the additional time, knowledge base and scaffolding I have from clinics.

Yeah, I completely agree. Even though we had the step-1-before-clinicals format, I've found it substantially easier to go back and relearn a lot of those nitty gritty details compared to when I was learning it for the first time during step 1. I've never been one that can power through and memorize information without much context. I felt that was much of what step 1 studying was at that point. Now that I have a good amount of clinical knowledge, though, it's been much easier to learn about the basic science of a lot of the diseases we see in the hospital.

I imagine it depends on the person. For us, perhaps such an arrangement would be beneficial. For others - perhaps the people that do have the ability to power through and memorize massive amounts of information - it may not be so advantageous.

Who knows. Could be the kind of thing worth studying, though.

 

[breakintheroof]

I imagine it depends on the person. For us, perhaps such an arrangement would be beneficial. For others - perhaps the people that do have the ability to power through and memorize massive amounts of information - it may not be so advantageous.

Who knows. Could be the kind of thing worth studying, though.

Thank you both for this discussion. I just tried to poke around to see if I could dig up any publications about this and I came up empty.

To OP's question, for me as an applicant, I think Step 1 preparation would still seem to be a relatively small consideration in deciding between an abbreviated vs. two-year preclinical curriculum.

 

[NickNaylor]

Thank you both for this discussion. I just tried to poke around to see if I could dig up any publications about this and I came up empty.

For me as an applicant, I think Step 1 preparation would still seem to be a relatively small consideration in deciding between an abbreviated vs. two-year preclinical curriculum.

I would agree. I've said this elsewhere, but I think the primary advantage of abbreviated pre-clinical curricula is not from the perspective of step 1 (though that might be an ancillary benefit) but, instead, the ability to pursue electives or perform research prior to applying for residency. I think that's hugely beneficial, particularly if you're interested in something competitive (research "required") or something off the beaten path (specialty exploration helpful).

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

This might have some useful info:
http://meded.ucsf.edu/sites/meded.u...dges-curriculum/140605summary-timing-step.pdf

 

[breakintheroof]

This might have some useful info:
http://meded.ucsf.edu/sites/meded.u...dges-curriculum/140605summary-timing-step.pdf

That is really cool, where did you find that?!

This is a report that UCSF put together as part of their curriculum redesign. Of note, they did decide to have Step 1 taken after clerkships.

In summary the research data on the optimal timing for taking Step 1 is limited, dated and inconclusive. One study recommended, based on its findings, that medical schools consider allowing the USMLE to be taken later, possibly in the fourth year. The other studies which assessed for timing and USMLE examination scores either found no difference in the scores based on when the exam was taken or supported the findings that the closer the time interval is to when the material is learned, the better the performance.

Edit: Found the page describing their decision based on this report.

 

[darkjedi]

Thank you both for this discussion. I just tried to poke around to see if I could dig up any publications about this and I came up empty.

To OP's question, for me as an applicant, I think Step 1 preparation would still seem to be a relatively small consideration in deciding between an abbreviated vs. two-year preclinical curriculum.

Definitely agreed, any potential benefit for Step 1 pales in comparison to the extra flexibility of being able to do almost 7 months of electives to try and figure out what you want to do for the rest of your career, especially if you think you might want to do something not typically in the core clerkship year, like EM, derm, specialties, etc.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

That is really cool, where did you find that?!

This is a report that UCSF put together as part of their curriculum redesign. Of note, they did decide to have Step 1 taken after clerkships.

I googled "step 1 after 3rd year" and it was on the first page. I figured that there should be some studies regarding this topic because several schools have implemented this curriculum structure. I wouldn't be surprised if more schools adopt this sequence in the near future.

 

[Goro]

You get out of medical school what you put into it.

Hey Everybody,

This has been addressed a few times, but I'm still a bit confused:

Why isn't the average Step I score at a particular school a good indicator of the effectiveness of the pre-clinical curriculum?

I understand that success on Step I is largely the result of self-study and that there is often some "creative accounting" involved when it comes to schools reporting their Step I average. However, I've also observed the following:

School A:
Average GPA: 3.70
Average MCAT score: 32
Average Step I score: 226

School B:
Average GPA: 3.68
Average MCAT score: 30
Average Step I score: 235

Assuming that all schools are going to similarly calculate (or massage) the numbers in such a way as to arrive at the highest Step I average possible, can't the discrepancy be attributed to the curriculum? Or is there a major variable that I'm missing here?

Thanks for any input!

-Bill

 

[mimelim]

While this is a good post, things have changed since the time that it was written in 2009, and there is now a source of board scores: The US News Compass subscription. I am guessing that OP's numbers come from there.

OP acknowledges this--I think he wants someone to say something like, "External factors are the cause of this disparity, not the curriculum," or "The disparity doesn't actually exist," or "While the disparity may exist due to the curriculum, it is so small that it could be at most a tiny factor in your decision."

Edited to add: OP, I have linked to this before, here's someone (@chronicidal) who looked for "value-added" in medical schools along the lines of what you wrote. (I am just a fellow applicant, so I can't say I endorse or dispute any of this.)

At best, those scores are self reported, worst, they are completely fabricated. Hardly a source to even remotely consider using when deciding on a school.

 

[breakintheroof]

At best, those scores are self reported, worst, they are completely fabricated. Hardly a source to even remotely consider using when deciding on a school.

I forgot to include in my list of reasons, "Those data are made up."

US News claims they have someone high up verify things, though who knows. Some institutions (not med schools) have been caught lying to US News.

The only independently verifiable example I can find is UVA, which posts their score report every year. Their 2012 report does match up with what US News has for them. For everyone else, one can freely discount them.

 

[mimelim]

I forgot to include in my list of reasons, "Those data are made up."

US News claims they have someone high up verify things, though who knows. Some institutions (not med schools) have been caught lying to US News.

The only independently verifiable example I can find is UVA, which posts their score report every year. Their 2012 report does match up with what US News has for them. For everyone else, one can freely discount them.

I have worked very closely with the dean's office at two schools, even tabulating the Step 1 scores for one of them off of the raw data. It did not correlate with the USNews data at all. With the way that step 1 scores are reported to the schools, it is impossible for USNews or anyone for that matter to get an actual listing of scores. The Dean's office at that school (the 3 people that actually have the real numbers from NBME) stated that they had no plans to release that information to the students or the public. Yet, USNews claims to have it.

So, again, I state again. At best, it is self reported. At worst, it is fabricated.

 

[breakintheroof]

I have worked very closely with the dean's office at two schools, even tabulating the Step 1 scores for one of them off of the raw data. It did not correlate with the USNews data at all. With the way that step 1 scores are reported to the schools, it is impossible for USNews or anyone for that matter to get an actual listing of scores.

I am not sure I understand. US News reports the following:

United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE)
Step 1: Number of students examined XXX
Step 1: Percent passing XX%
Step 1: Average score XXX
Step 2 (Clinical Knowledge): Number of students examined XXX
Step 2 (Clinical Knowledge): Percent passing XX%
Step 2 (Clinical Knowledge): Average score XXX

Exactly this information is found in these two reports produced by the NBME on UVA's website: Step 1, Step 2.

Could you elaborate on your experience? (I want to be clear that I am not advocating for using board scores in evaluating schools, merely trying to understand how they handle them.)

Edit: You added this:

The Dean's office at that school (the 3 people that actually have the real numbers from NBME) stated that they had no plans to release that information to the students or the public. Yet, USNews claims to have it.

Maybe US News makes scores up for those that don't send them in. Presuming the deans kept to their word, this would have to be the case.

 

[mimelim]

I am not sure I understand. US News reports the following:

United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE)
Step 1: Number of students examined XXX
Step 1: Percent passing XX%
Step 1: Average score XXX
Step 2 (Clinical Knowledge): Number of students examined XXX
Step 2 (Clinical Knowledge): Percent passing XX%
Step 2 (Clinical Knowledge): Average score XXX

Exactly this information is found in these two reports produced by the NBME on UVA's website: Step 1, Step 2.

Could you elaborate on your experience? (I want to be clear that I am not advocating for using board scores in evaluating schools, merely trying to understand how they handle them.)

Edit: You added this:

Maybe US News makes scores up for those that don't send them in. Presuming the deans kept to their word, this would have to be the case.

If USNews could get it's hands on the NBME reports (like the ones that you linked from UVA), then yes, their data would be accurate. Schools also get the students' scores on another sheet as well. We were looking to correlate how different students did in pre-clinical classes lined up with Step 1 performance, so we built a database to analyze it.

This certainly may have changed over the last several years, but I don't think that the NBME would simply start selling or giving out that data.

 

[breakintheroof]

Schools also get the students' scores on another sheet as well. We were looking to correlate how different students did in pre-clinical classes lined up with Step 1 performance, so we built a database to analyze it.

Slightly off topic, but I'm curious about what you may have found.

 

[BillrothI]

Thanks for all the replies, everyone! Very helpful information.

A couple of follow-up questions:

1) What do you make of schools that report a Step 1 score below the national average? I interviewed at one well-regarded school this year and was surprised to find that their average score was quite a bit lower than one might have expected (a touch over 220).

2) Do you think that a year of rotations would help most students excel on Step 1? Several schools will be changing to a 1.5-year pre-clinical curriculum beginning this Fall and I'm wondering if that was a response to suboptimal board scores over the past few years.

Thanks again!

-Bill

 

[mimelim]

Thanks for all the replies, everyone! Very helpful information.

A couple of follow-up questions:

1) What do you make of schools that report a Step 1 score below the national average? I interviewed at one well-regarded school this year and was surprised to find that their average score was quite a bit lower than one might have expected (a touch over 220).

2) Do you think that a year of rotations would help most students excel on Step 1? Several schools will be changing to a 1.5-year pre-clinical curriculum beginning this Fall and I'm wondering if that was a response to suboptimal board scores over the past few years.

Thanks again!

-Bill

Regarding #1, I have no idea. They are being honest?

#2 You do not start your rotations before taking Step 1. It is typically a requirement that you pass Step 1 before you are allowed to start your MS3 clerkships. A 1.5 year pre-clinical curriculum is a DECREASE in the length of the pre-clinical curriculum (down from the typical 2 years). Most schools will tell you that it does not impact Step scores and improves overall education.

 

[BillrothI]

Regarding #1, I have no idea. They are being honest?

#2 You do not start your rotations before taking Step 1. It is typically a requirement that you pass Step 1 before you are allowed to start your MS3 clerkships. A 1.5 year pre-clinical curriculum is a DECREASE in the length of the pre-clinical curriculum (down from the typical 2 years). Most schools will tell you that it does not impact Step scores and improves overall education.

Thanks, mimelim. However, I'm fairly certain that the curriculum at many of these schools does allow students to begin clerkships prior to taking Step 1. IIRC, the schedule at one of the schools involved a year and a half of pre-clinical training followed by a year of clerkships. Following the first year of clerkships, students have something like six weeks off to study for Step 1. After taking Step 1, the students resume clerkships (primarily electives) for the final year and a half of medical school.

-Bill

 

[Instatewaiter]

While I don't believe the differences in pre-clinical content is particularly large, I do think that schools that have an accelerated 1.5 curriculum and Step 1 after your clinical year have a distinct advantage.

Baylor, Vanderbilt, Columbia, and Penn consistently have some of the highest average Step 1 scores. A lot of it is due to pre-selection, but as someone who has the benefit of clinical year before Step 1, I do believe it helps.

So the step 1 content is largely not clinical. I actually think it may be a disadvantage to be farther away from the minutia of the pre-clinical years.

Vandy, baylor, Columbia and Penn average so high mainly because their average matriculant has an average MCAT of 34-37. It is no wonder they beat the national average.

 

[mimelim]

Thanks, mimelim. However, I'm fairly certain that the curriculum at many of these schools does allow students to begin clerkships prior to taking Step 1. IIRC, the schedule at one of the schools involved a year and a half of pre-clinical training followed by a year of clerkships. Following the first year of clerkships, students have something like six weeks off to study for Step 1. After taking Step 1, the students resume clerkships (primarily electives) for the final year and a half of medical school.

-Bill

In that case... it makes no difference. Your clinical rotations will not help you with Step 1 at all. If anything it would hurt you.

 

[BillrothI]

Thanks, Instatewaiter and Mimelim. I thought that it might be advantageous to take Step 1 immediately after the pre-clinical period rather than spending a year in the clinic beforehand.

Some schools do claim that experiencing several clerkships before taking Step 1 can help improve scores. I am entirely unfamiliar with the content of the exam, but I think I would be apprehensive about taking an eight-hour test after spending a full year away from the classroom.

-Bill

 

[NickNaylor]

Thanks, Instatewaiter and Mimelim. I thought that it might be advantageous to take Step 1 immediately after the pre-clinical period rather than spending a year in the clinic beforehand.

Some schools do claim that experiencing several clerkships before taking Step 1 can help improve scores. I am entirely unfamiliar with the content of the exam, but I think I would be apprehensive about taking an eight-hour test after spending a full year away from the classroom.

-Bill

See the discussion above for why it may or may not be helpful. Strictly with respect to material covered, the clinical years will not help you at all for step 1. However, it might provide you with a framework within which to understand that material more easily.

 

[WingedOx]

While I don't believe the differences in pre-clinical content is particularly large, I do think that schools that have an accelerated 1.5 curriculum and Step 1 after your clinical year have a distinct advantage.

Baylor, Vanderbilt, Columbia, and Penn consistently have some of the highest average Step 1 scores. A lot of it is due to pre-selection, but as someone who has the benefit of clinical year before Step 1, I do believe it helps.

God, I think I got dumber after 3rd year. There's no way I'd want to take step one after that. All the pathology minutiae was still fresh doing things the traditional way.

 

[KnuxNole]

The only thing I've gained from "class" is the notes that came with it. Everything I've learned was from reading on my own, and supplement books. The lectures were usually so bogged down with random stuff, that it was pointless to listen to them, I stopped after first semester with streaming them...

 

[operaman]

I would say that average step 1 score is utterly worthless in this case. There's a lot of inherent variability in the scaling process for step scores - the 226 and 235 you mention are not significantly different. The nbme says that the error in their scaling is such that 2 scores must differ by more than 16 points to be significantly different. I know the math changes when comparing groups of scores, but you get the idea. Oh yeah, and who knows if the score data is accurate anyhow.

There are so many more important things to think about. You will determine your own step score.

 

[sliceofbread136]

I think a more important thing to look at is how many weeks they give you to study. My school gives 5 weeks max (that's with taking 0 vacation time) and I'm honestly finding myself wishing I chose a different school.

 

[godawg300]

I think a more important thing to look at is how many weeks they give you to study. My school gives 5 weeks max (that's with taking 0 vacation time) and I'm honestly finding myself wishing I chose a different school.

How long do you wish you had? I'm curious how much study time is sufficient for the average medical student (I know this is highly individual). Like is 6 weeks enough if you studied along your normal coursework?

 

[iniquus]

4-6 weeks is enough. Anything more is diminishing gains.

Anyway, to piggyback on comments already made, Step 1 is almost entirely dependent on the individual. For example, there was no difference in the curriculum, but there was > 10 score average between my class and the class below me.

 

[NickNaylor]

How long do you wish you had? I'm curious how much study time is sufficient for the average medical student (I know this is highly individual). Like is 6 weeks enough if you studied along your normal coursework?

We had a total of 7 weeks (one of which was spring break), and I only ended up studying for 6 weeks. I know some of my classmates only used 4-5. I think it depends on how much studying you need to do and whether you prefer to go hard for a shorter period of time or spread your studying out over a longer period of time. By the end of 6 weeks I just didn't have it in me to study hard anymore; that last week was a complete waste, and I wish I had taken my test a week earlier.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

While I don't believe the differences in pre-clinical content is particularly large, I do think that schools that have an accelerated 1.5 curriculum and Step 1 after your clinical year have a distinct advantage.

Baylor, Vanderbilt, Columbia, and Penn consistently have some of the highest average Step 1 scores. A lot of it is due to pre-selection, but as someone who has the benefit of clinical year before Step 1, I do believe it helps.

Clinical year before Step 1 helps improve Step 1 score? Step 1 is oh so very disconnected from clinical medicine.

 

[Afford]

I know from a Baylor med student that Baylor has its students take a step 1-like test before taking the step 1, so they essentially study twice.

 

[sliceofbread136]

How long do you wish you had? I'm curious how much study time is sufficient for the average medical student (I know this is highly individual). Like is 6 weeks enough if you studied along your normal coursework?

For me 7 would have been perfect. 6 weeks on 1 week off.

 

[Psai]

I know from a Baylor med student that Baylor has its students take a step 1-like test before taking the step 1, so they essentially study twice.

I'm sure most schools take a practice step 1 test. I doubt that they are "studying twice". I've forgotten more things in the past few months than most people know. You should try to know the basics for this year but the details of how snare proteins won't be very relative to your patients with an uri

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Vanderbilt just switched to an accelerated preclinical curriculum. Their board score reputation was built on a traditional 2 yr curriculum.

Duke is well known for a disproportionately low step 1 average, which their students (anecdotes, but it's all we got) blame on the accelerated curriculum and clinical year separating their preclinical time from when they sit for the USMLE

I wonder how Duke students feel overall about their curriculum. While their step 1 scores may not be stellar, it's possible that they enjoy having the 3rd year for research, a masters, etc. Or perhaps they're merely satisfied with the end result (i.e. where they match).

 

[Psai]

I wonder how Duke students feel overall about their curriculum. While their step 1 scores may not be stellar, it's possible that they enjoy having the 3rd year for research, a masters, etc. Or perhaps they're merely satisfied with the end result (i.e. where they match).

Step 1 score > everything else

 

[godawg300]

I wonder how Duke students feel overall about their curriculum. While their step 1 scores may not be stellar, it's possible that they enjoy having the 3rd year for research, a masters, etc. Or perhaps they're merely satisfied with the end result (i.e. where they match).

If you match where you want, why does your step 1 score matter?

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

If you match where you want, why does your step 1 score matter?

It shouldn't matter. But I wonder how they feel about their overall experience, not just the end result.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Step 1 score > everything else

Is this really the case? What if you enjoy your school's curriculum, location, community, etc and yet still match at a desirable residency with a slightly lower step 1 score?

 

[Psai]

The average step 1 score of the school is irrelevant. Before you start, you don't know a thing about the curriculum or community. You can match at plenty of good residencies without an amazing step 1 score. But your step 1 score is the most important aspect of your application.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

You're confusing me. I was simply wondering how Duke students feel about their curriculum and you responded with "step 1 score > than everything else." In a subsequent post, I referred to a scenario in which a student is happy with their overall med school experience (obviously after experiencing it) and you said something about not knowing anything about the curriculum or community before you start.

 

[Narmerguy]

I'd check the school specific forums in the Duke thread and see if any current students want to comment. If no current students post there, perhaps other applicants have already heard from students about this and can share.