Value of Average Step I Score

[Shams al Deen]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

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.

That makes it sound like the MCAT is a more grueling process than step 1. Everyone I know that did well on the MCAT studied at least 12 weeks, and usually more. The people that do really well with 6 weeks of MCAT prep are definitely the exceptions. So why does everyone that's been through both tests make it sound like step 1 is 100 times harder than the MCAT?

 

[NickNaylor]

That makes it sound like the MCAT is a more grueling process than step 1. Everyone I know that did well on the MCAT studied at least 12 weeks, and usually more. The people that do really well with 6 weeks of MCAT prep are definitely the exceptions. So why does everyone that's been through both tests make it sound like step 1 is 100 times harder than the MCAT?

I will just let you see for yourself. The MCAT is a complete joke compared to step 1. Did you study 8-10+ hours a day for 12 weeks for the MCAT? Highly doubtful. Did you do 2300+ questions in preparation for the MCAT? Doubtful. Did you do ~24 months of coursework at ~20 credit hours, nearly all of the content of which is fair game for the MCAT? No.

The two really aren't comparable.

Edit: I will also add that the sheer pace of the pre-clinical years forces you to assimilate material more quickly. You are simply a more efficient studier after the pre-clinical years, thus that time you're spending is MUCH more effective than what you likely did for the MCAT.

 

[bionerd20]

That makes it sound like the MCAT is a more grueling process than step 1. Everyone I know that did well on the MCAT studied at least 12 weeks, and usually more. The people that do really well with 6 weeks of MCAT prep are definitely the exceptions. So why does everyone that's been through both tests make it sound like step 1 is 100 times harder than the MCAT?

I'm sure Step 1 is much more grueling than the MCAT, but I've definitely wondered this myself. Then again, when we studied 12+ weeks for the MCAT, it's not like we just studied all day, which I believe is what med students do when preparing for Step 1. Regardless, I'd also love to hear a med student's answer for this question.

 

[Psai]

That makes it sound like the MCAT is a more grueling process than step 1. Everyone I know that did well on the MCAT studied at least 12 weeks, and usually more. The people that do really well with 6 weeks of MCAT prep are definitely the exceptions. So why does everyone that's been through both tests make it sound like step 1 is 100 times harder than the MCAT?

Just wait till you start medical school. The pace is impossible to describe to those who haven't been through it. Then it somehow increases in year 2. And step 1 is even more intense but continuously for 12 hours a day for 6 weeks. Mcat studying doesn't even come close

 

[soccerusa]

Have you guys seen the Duke match list? It's pretty incredible. Maybe the year for research ends up compensating for the lower Step 1 scores?

 

[Shams al Deen]

Have you guys seen the Duke match list? It's pretty incredible. Maybe the year for research ends up compensating for the lower Step 1 scores?

Nope, premeds don't possess the secrets of medicine and so we are unable to gain anything from match lists. To us, Duke and Touro show no difference in their match lists. Big name programs dont mean a thing because they are often malignant. And we all have equal opportunity, doesn't matter if you went to Harvard or Touro (only matters a little if you want to go into academics, which doesn't even pay well so who cares).

 

[soccerusa]

Nope, premeds don't possess the secrets of medicine and so we are unable to gain anything from match lists. To us, Duke and Touro show no difference in their match lists. Big name programs dont mean a thing because they are often malignant. And we all have equal opportunity, doesn't matter if you went to Harvard or Touro (only matters a little if you want to go into academics, which doesn't even pay well so who cares).

I'm going to push back pretty heavily here. The specific question discussed was whether the shortened preclinical curriculum affected step 1 scores. It is clear that matching into certain fields requires strong performance on Step 1. Duke shows a high proportion of students going into fields that are associated with being competitive. My point was that this shows that Duke students who want those competitive fields are clearly achieving their goal.

Also, your point about equating Touro to Harvard in terms of opportunity is BS. I agree with the majority of SDN wisdom regarding the equality of opportunity between schools especially with regard to matching. However, it is crazy to think that the opportunities are the same between Touro and Harvard. Let's have a little bit of a reality check.

Even for less competitive fields like Peds, how many students are matching at CHOP from Touro? I bet it is a lot less than students from Harvard (or WashU, Duke, Hopkins etc).

 

[soccerusa]

I think your sarcasm detector is a bit off

Haha well maybe you have a point. I guess it says something about how well ingrained the pre allo mantra of school pedigree not mattering at all.

 

[soccerusa]

The poster erected a nice straw man with his sarcasm anyway.

No one has ever said that there is no difference between match lists for such an extreme sample of Harvard to a DO school. It would be absurd to say that. However the question would be what are the reasons for the difference? Is it an independent effect of prestige (which is what Duke's match results would imply), is it a surrogate measure for overall student caliber, etc.

And practically speaking I'm pretty sure there have been zero instances in which students were trying to decide between Harvard and Touro, so it's a particularly pointless straw man.

The reason most experienced posters say there is no point in overanalyzing match lists is that applicants tend to be making decisions between schools of at least the same stratosphere, such that they will have the opportunities they need to achieve individual success at either school. Feel free to alert me the next time a student is deciding between a Top 10 school and a DO, and I will happily come back to make a vigorous argument in favor of the top 10 for them.

Fair enough

 

[Shams al Deen]

I guess it says something about how well ingrained the pre allo mantra of school pedigree not mattering at all.

Exactly.

The poster erected a nice straw man with his sarcasm anyway.

No one has ever said that there is no difference between match lists for such an extreme sample of Harvard to a DO school. It would be absurd to say that. However the question would be what are the reasons for the difference? Is it an independent effect of prestige (which is what Duke's match results would imply), is it a surrogate measure for overall student caliber, etc.

And practically speaking I'm pretty sure there have been zero instances in which students were trying to decide between Harvard and Touro, so it's a particularly pointless straw man.

The reason most experienced posters say there is no point in overanalyzing match lists is that applicants tend to be making decisions between schools of at least the same stratosphere, such that they will have the opportunities they need and their success at either school at that point will be largely due to individual effort and aptitude at either school. Feel free to alert me the next time a student is deciding between a Top 10 school and a DO, and I will happily come back to make a vigorous argument in favor of the top 10 for them.

Not really a straw man, as I intentionally used an extreme example for sarcasm. I get that nobody is really choosing between Touro and Harvard. But a lot of people are probably trying to decide between a school like Case western vs. cheaper unranked state school (like U New Mexico). What I'm arguing against is the dogma that the med school attended has no bearing on future career options once you're outside of "top 5" schools. And I think that premeds do have the tools to see that much lower ranked state schools have lesser match lists than schools ranked top 25 or even top 50.

And you can explain away a lot of it with the fact that students at prestigious schools were more competitive as premeds, so are likely to be more competitive as med students (regardless of where they went for med school). However, I don't think you can explain everything away with that. Also, if the cheaper option was always the better option (aside from extreme Harvard vs Touro examples), then why do you find so many of the best students turning down their state schools for the 'higher ranked' school. These top 25 schools always find enough top candidates willing to pay extra money to attend--there must be a reason for this.

 

[Narmerguy]

Exactly.


Not really a straw man, as I intentionally used an extreme example for sarcasm. I get that nobody is really choosing between Touro and Harvard. But a lot of people are probably trying to decide between a school like Case western vs. cheaper unranked state school (like U New Mexico). What I'm arguing against is the dogma that the med school attended has no bearing on future career options once you're outside of "top 5" schools. And I think that premeds do have the tools to see that much lower ranked state schools have lesser match lists than schools ranked top 25 or even top 50.

And you can explain away a lot of it with the fact that students at prestigious schools were more competitive as premeds, so are likely to be more competitive as med students (regardless of where they went for med school). However, I don't think you can explain everything away with that. Also, if the cheaper option was always the better option (aside from extreme Harvard vs Touro examples), then why do you find so many of the best students turning down their state schools for the 'higher ranked' school. These top 25 schools always find enough top candidates willing to pay extra money to attend--there must be a reason for this.

That's not exactly a compelling argument. More importantly, you're conflating a lot of things here and consequently misstating what was said. What med students/residents/attendings on SDN often state is that you should not make school decisions based upon match lists. To suggest that there are no difference between schools is excessive. However, whether those differences matter is up to the applicant--do you care about research? location? cost? interdisciplinary resources? flexibility? curriculum? Don't choose based on match lists, which require knowledge about student-scenarios that you don't have. Choose based on these, which are all very important reasons to consider a school and are considerably more interpretable for applicants.

As far as the "value added" of schools--if it exists, I don't think it necessarily reveals itself in terms of the match list. There have been many posters who attended these schools who have basically said as much. The reasons aren't new, they're not surprising, and they're fairly obvious. A match list is just a document of where people went. It doesn't tell you where they wanted to go (is this actually their top choice? did they want to specialize but didn't have the application for it?), what they did to get there (did they do anything "special" that other students at other schools couldn't have done?), or what they did after (did they go into Medicine to specialize or because they actually liked IM). I love my school, I think it's the best medical school, I'm sure our match list looks fine, but I also think the success of the students is mostly because these guys are crazy talented and hard working. Hell I'm just trying to keep up, it's a pleasure to be around them.

 

[Psai]

That's not exactly a compelling argument. More importantly, you're conflating a lot of things here and consequently misstating what was said. What med students/residents/attendings on SDN often state is that you should not make school decisions based upon match lists. To suggest that there are no difference between schools is excessive. However, whether those differences matter is up to the applicant--do you care about research? location? cost? interdisciplinary resources? flexibility? curriculum? Don't choose based on match lists, which require knowledge about student-scenarios that you don't have. Choose based on these, which are all very important reasons to consider a school and are considerably more interpretable for applicants.

As far as the "value added" of schools--if it exists, I don't think it necessarily reveals itself in terms of the match list. There have been many posters who attended these schools who have basically said as much. The reasons aren't new, they're not surprising, and they're fairly obvious. A match list is just a document of where people went. It doesn't tell you where they wanted to go (is this actually their top choice? did they want to specialize but didn't have the application for it?), what they did to get there (did they do anything "special" that other students at other schools couldn't have done?), or what they did after (did they go into Medicine to specialize or because they actually liked IM). I love my school, I think it's the best medical school, I'm sure our match list looks fine, but I also think the success of the students is mostly because these guys are crazy talented and hard working. Hell I'm just trying to keep up, it's a pleasure to be around them.

Great post, you get it

 

[mimelim]

Exactly.


Not really a straw man, as I intentionally used an extreme example for sarcasm. I get that nobody is really choosing between Touro and Harvard. But a lot of people are probably trying to decide between a school like Case western vs. cheaper unranked state school (like U New Mexico). What I'm arguing against is the dogma that the med school attended has no bearing on future career options once you're outside of "top 5" schools. And I think that premeds do have the tools to see that much lower ranked state schools have lesser match lists than schools ranked top 25 or even top 50.

And you can explain away a lot of it with the fact that students at prestigious schools were more competitive as premeds, so are likely to be more competitive as med students (regardless of where they went for med school). However, I don't think you can explain everything away with that. Also, if the cheaper option was always the better option (aside from extreme Harvard vs Touro examples), then why do you find so many of the best students turning down their state schools for the 'higher ranked' school. These top 25 schools always find enough top candidates willing to pay extra money to attend--there must be a reason for this.

Millions of dollars of marketing and chasing USNews rankings will do wonders about swaying people in their early twenties to do things. The medical school I went to had 3 people dedicated full time to this. Their office had a list on a whiteboard of all the criteria that USNews used and basically how they could 'influence' people within the institution to increase our scores.

Nobody is going to tell you that name doesn't matter. It does. When I told my chair, "Hey I'm getting my brother to do the stats on our paper." His face went 😵. "He's applied mathematics/statistics at Harvard." His face changed to ^_^. But, if you actually sit through the match process and read applications, then interview people, then make a rank list (like we did last Friday), you realize that name means very VERY little. We want good students, but more than that, we want good workers, good people, good interns, junior residents and seniors. Medical school only selects for good students and maybe good people (and if it does, not exactly that well), not the rest.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

It'd be nice if the schools (that currently participate) did not submit the US News surveys for a 5 year period.

 

[tiedyeddog]

I don't think the average step score matters. What matters is how much free time they give you to study for it. The longer the better and at very minimum you need 4 weeks.

 

[iniquus]

That makes it sound like the MCAT is a more grueling process than step 1. Everyone I know that did well on the MCAT studied at least 12 weeks, and usually more. The people that do really well with 6 weeks of MCAT prep are definitely the exceptions. So why does everyone that's been through both tests make it sound like step 1 is 100 times harder than the MCAT?

This is hands-down the greatest thing I've ever read.

 

[Shams al Deen]

This is hands-down the greatest thing I've ever read.

Glad you liked it.

 

[darkjedi]

That makes it sound like the MCAT is a more grueling process than step 1. Everyone I know that did well on the MCAT studied at least 12 weeks, and usually more. The people that do really well with 6 weeks of MCAT prep are definitely the exceptions. So why does everyone that's been through both tests make it sound like step 1 is 100 times harder than the MCAT?

I probably had like 3 weeks of dedicated studying for it plus several weeks of concurrent studying while finishing up my postbac. It probably helped that the postbac kind of felt like a year long MCAT bootcamp.

Step 1 requires an amount of knowledge an order of magnitude greater than the MCAT. The issue isn't the number of weeks, but the fact that you start to burn out by the end of 6 weeks of cramming 2 years of information into your brain.

 

[famoussquamous]

It can help. Like if a school has an average MCAT average but a below or above average Step 1, then you probably know it's something about the curriculum that caused the fluctuation. Also some schools don't teach to Step 1 while others do. Honestly I feel like you'll probably learn whatever you need to know in residency anyway so what they teach you those first 2 years isn't that important.

 

[Flamen04]

Ignorance is bliss. Looking back at these threads just makes me realize how naive I was when I was a pre-med. Nothing matters, but your own hard work.

 

[tantacles]

I'm sure Step 1 is much more grueling than the MCAT, but I've definitely wondered this myself. Then again, when we studied 12+ weeks for the MCAT, it's not like we just studied all day, which I believe is what med students do when preparing for Step 1. Regardless, I'd also love to hear a med student's answer for this question.

I found the MCAT about 100 times more difficult than Step 1. There. I said it.

 

[bionerd20]

I found the MCAT about 100 times more difficult than Step 1. There. I said it.

Any chance you could elaborate on that? With the little that I know about Step 1, it seems much more difficult than the MCAT, and only having 6 weeks to study makes it seem even worse. I'm just curious to know why you thought it was so much easier.

 

[tantacles]

Any chance you could elaborate on that? With the little that I know about Step 1, it seems much more difficult than the MCAT, and only having 6 weeks to study makes it seem even worse. I'm just curious to know why you thought it was so much easier.

There's obviously a matter of opinion.

The MCAT, to me, seems far less circumscribed. There are a million things and ways to study, and no one seems to agree on which will get you a great score. The people I've seen who receive 40's post elaborate and intensive ways they got to their score that use multiple sources and would lead to burnout for me. Even a 36 can take months of prep.

Step 1? Take a look at the fora for Step 1. Almost everyone agrees that a couple of resources are golden and the rest are optional. Personally, I can outperform most people (and let's be honest: That's your goal on these tests.) if the material is straightforward and limited and I have the same time constraints as everyone else. And that's what Step 1 is: Your chance to show what you can do with six weeks and the same material (largely) as everyone else. For me? Doable. For others? Well, if we're being literal, half of people will score above the median, and the other half will score below it.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

There's obviously a matter of opinion.

The MCAT, to me, seems far less circumscribed. There are a million things and ways to study, and no one seems to agree on which will get you a great score. The people I've seen who receive 40's post elaborate and intensive ways they got to their score that use multiple sources and lead to . Even a 36 can take months of prep.

Step 1? Take a look at the fora for Step 1. Almost everyone agrees that a couple of resources are golden and the rest are optional. Personally, I can outperform most people (and let's be honest: That's your goal on these tests.) if the material is straightforward and limited and I have the same time constraints as everyone else. And that's what Step 1 is: Your chance to show what you can do with six weeks and the same material (largely) as everyone else. For me? Doable. For others? Well, if we're being literal, half of people will score above the median, and the other half will score below it.

Is there any benefit for studying more than the 6 weeks of dedicated step 1 prep time? Also, is it really possible to forego the optional resources and just focus on the "golden" ones and still get a 90th percentile or higher score? I ask because I'm interested in a highly competitive specialty and I know that a really high step 1 score is one of the absolute requirements to become a highly competitive applicant.

 

[tantacles]

Is there any benefit for studying more than the 6 weeks of dedicated step 1 prep time? Also, is it really possible to forego the optional resources and just focus on the "golden" ones and still get a 90th percentile or higher score? I ask because I'm interested in a highly competitive specialty and I know that a really high step 1 score is one of the absolute requirements to become a highly competitive applicant.

Take a look at the USMLE boards if you want an answer to that question. My school worked a bit differently as we technically only had about 3 weeks of strictly free prep time (no other shelf exams or classes), but our schedule tapers a bit near the end of February, so I studied from then on and took the exam in late May, giving me a month off, approximately (we have a week of mandatory sessions in June just before clinical rotations), before everything truly ramped up, so technically, I didn't really use much of our dedicated prep time.

 

[giantswing]

They're completely different tests. Don't think doing well on one means youll do well on the other. Some people will never be able to do well on, say, verbal. Some people will never be able to process and or retain all the info for step one to do well. And while step two is easier, the thought process is different than step one. I know some people (tho they will be the exception) who bombed step two after doing fairly well on one. Third year is make or break for step two.

 

[Shams al Deen]

How about the fact that 60% of students basically 'fail' the MCAT and are not able to get into med school because of their score. With step 1, it's like a 1% fail rate. Obviously, if this was my argument to prove the MCAT is harder than step 1, it would be seriously flawed (for starters, it's a completely different pool of test-takers). I'm not arguing that. But it is interesting, and questions the notion that the MCAT is a joke. It is much more of a hurdle for much more people than the step 1.

100 people think they will be doctors, after taking the MCAT that number will decrease to about 40.
100 people think they will be doctors, after taking the Step 1 that number will decrease to about 99.
That has to mean something.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

How about the fact that 60% of students basically 'fail' the MCAT and are not able to get into med school because of their score. With step 1, it's like a 1% fail rate. Obviously, if this was my argument to prove the MCAT is harder than step 1, it would be seriously flawed (for starters, it's a completely different pool of test-takers). I'm not arguing that. But it is interesting, and questions the notion that the MCAT is a joke. It is much more of a hurdle for much more people than the step 1.

100 people think they will be doctors, after taking the MCAT that number will decrease to about 40.
100 people think they will be doctors, after taking the Step 1 that number will decrease to about 99.
That has to mean something.

Those percentages are irrelevant because the MCAT and Step 1 are administered for different purposes. US MD students are expected to pass Step 1. The MCAT is designed to weed out a high percentage of test takers.

Also, I don't think anyone is downplaying the MCAT. They're merely saying that it pales in comparison to Step 1 and that sounds perfectly reasonable.

 

[Psai]

How about the fact that 60% of students basically 'fail' the MCAT and are not able to get into med school because of their score. With step 1, it's like a 1% fail rate. Obviously, if this was my argument to prove the MCAT is harder than step 1, it would be seriously flawed (for starters, it's a completely different pool of test-takers). I'm not arguing that. But it is interesting, and questions the notion that the MCAT is a joke. It is much more of a hurdle for much more people than the step 1.

100 people think they will be doctors, after taking the MCAT that number will decrease to about 40.
100 people think they will be doctors, after taking the Step 1 that number will decrease to about 99.
That has to mean something.

Except that the people taking step 1 already took and did well on the mcat so the quality of the test taker is much greater for step 1
This is not rocket science

i took both tests. i did fine on both tests. step 1 is harder than mcat. it encompasses way more information. average step 1 score is irrelevant for premeds. end of story


would you like to perform an analysis of the sat and the mcat next?

 

[KN.MD]

Let me explain to you why Step I at a school matters.

You are young and think merit is the only determinant of success in this profession. That's the core of it, but the factors that affect it include reputation, social connection, and brand name.

A school's average step I affects it's USNWR Ranking --> affects the way outside programs view it --> affects the residency interview it's students get --> affects their ability to train at reputable places and gain nice academic/institutional leadership position --> affects the establishment's ability to further propagate this cycle of nepotism. That's why the step score matters.

But you could always remain naive and idealistic and not play the game. Looking back, I'd go to the best ranked/highest step score school possible. You wouldn't believe how many doors were opened because of it.

 

[benjaminl1nus]

How about the fact that 60% of students basically 'fail' the MCAT and are not able to get into med school because of their score. With step 1, it's like a 1% fail rate. Obviously, if this was my argument to prove the MCAT is harder than step 1, it would be seriously flawed (for starters, it's a completely different pool of test-takers). I'm not arguing that. But it is interesting, and questions the notion that the MCAT is a joke. It is much more of a hurdle for much more people than the step 1.

100 people think they will be doctors, after taking the MCAT that number will decrease to about 40.
100 people think they will be doctors, after taking the Step 1 that number will decrease to about 99.
That has to mean something.

The problem with this is that you're assuming the 100 people who take the MCAT are of the same caliber as the 100 people who will take step 1.

the latter population of people is not representative of the general population because they have been selected.