Which schools boast the highest board score averages?

[calvinandhobbes]

Hey guys,

just wondering if there is some kind of ranking of how well certain schools do on the step 1 boards?

i've heard that ucsd kids do pretty well, but i'm wondering how the rest of the schools do.

thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[anon-y-mouse]

Hey guys,

just wondering if there is some kind of ranking of how well certain schools do on the step 1 boards?

i've heard that ucsd kids do pretty well, but i'm wondering how the rest of the schools do.

thanks

this is a dumb question. board scores depend on the individual student and how much he or she studies. if a school accepts students who do really well on standardized tests (mcat, etc.) then it follows that their scores have the potential to be higher.

 

[jebus]

i'm clairevoyant.
in 2 years, whichever school i attend.

 

[deuist]

Unlike the MCAT, USMLE scores are not used in rankings and therefore are not publicly released. Some schools will mention their scores to interviewees while a rare few will list their averages on the Internet. If you do a search on SDN, you'll find older threads where students have listed school's board scores. Most universities run in the 210-230 range as you might expect. Also, like anon-y-mouse mentioned, your individual performance is what you should concentrate on.

 

[calvinandhobbes]

this is a dumb question. board scores depend on the individual student and how much he or she studies. if a school accepts students who do really well on standardized tests (mcat, etc.) then it follows that their scores have the potential to be higher.

nice response. but often schools do prepare their students better (ie the rigorous curriculum of ucsd), and at the interviews i went to, they made it clear if their students did well compared to the national average on boards (implying these scores reflect how well that school prepared them)

it's obvious that board scores depend on the individual, but i believe the school has a lot to do with this, including curriculum and how much time they give off before the boards.

but thanks again for your kind and well thought-out answer

 

[thesauce]

this is a dumb question. board scores depend on the individual student and how much he or she studies. if a school accepts students who do really well on standardized tests (mcat, etc.) then it follows that their scores have the potential to be higher.

You'd be surprised. Harvard and rest of the ivies (the schools that accept the highest MCATs) don't usually have the best board scores. It's really weird. I saw a post on here a long time ago that claimed one of the Florida schools, I think it was UF, consistantly has the highest average board score.

In my opinion, the best ways for a school to prepare you for the boards are:
1. Have a class that is ranked (sorry Yale) so that all students study their a$$es off the entire 2 years before step 1.
2. Give shelf exams as finals for the classes.

 

[Plastikos]

this is a dumb question. board scores depend on the individual student and how much he or she studies. if a school accepts students who do really well on standardized tests (mcat, etc.) then it follows that their scores have the potential to be higher.

This is actually one of the best questions ever posted on this forum. This is the most important test of your career, it will determine your general competitiveness and ability to secure interviews more than any other piece of info in your application. MCAT/SATs do not correlate perfectly with the USMLE, eg, i never took the SATs, got a 31 on the MCAT (admittedly i did not study), but got a 250+ on the Step I (more than 2 SD). It depends on your personal ability to an extent of course, but your school can either help you or hinder you with how its setup.

Your school does matter b/c of how the first two years are formatted, is it old fashioned (biochem, anat, nl, then path) or systems (all presented together). Some schools will also have more or less time to prepare after 2nd year is over. USC gives their students a relatively large amount of time and prep. As a result of the new systems curriculum and the time alotted to study for the boards each class in the new curriculum has increased the school average 5 points each year. My class (2006) had an average of 225 or so.

 

[anon-y-mouse]

clearly you haven't done your research as you'll note that
a) "teaching to the boards" is a misnomer (or so i am told)
and b) most second year successful test takers will note that 5-6 weeks is the optimal concentrated study time for step 1 -- beyond that results in diminishing returns and "forgotten" high yield facts. hence "time off before the boards" is irrelevant as long as students get two months off.

If you think differences in medical schools lead to any sort of dent in your step 1 score, you are so mistaken. there's a caribbean contingent which consistently clears 230 because of mechanical study habits. of course they have to, because their education is considered substandard- no one would argue that every US medical school is better than any island one- and does that mean will they become better doctors? (who knows). the point is, individual strengths and efforts will lead to successful usmle outcome.

but, i'm not even in med school, so what do I know.

good luck with your decision!

 

[Plastikos]

You'd be surprised. Harvard and rest of the ivies (the schools that accept the highest MCATs) don't usually have the best board scores. It's really weird. I saw a post on here a long time ago that claimed one of the Florida schools, I think it was UF, consistantly has the highest average board score.

In my opinion, the best ways for a school to prepare you for the boards are:
1. Have a class that is ranked (sorry Yale) so that all students study their a$$es off the entire 2 years before step 1.
2. Give shelf exams as finals for the classes.

Our classes arent ranked at all, they just make you aware of the importance of the boards early. They also gave in my years (always changing), USMLE sample questions in every organ system exam. Completely agree with the shelf exams though, the sooner you get acquainted with the format the better you will be at it. Also, while studying hard the first two years will help, i'd say time free to study for the exam beforehand is much more important. Though the harder you study initially the less you have to "learn" while studying for boards.

 

[Plastikos]

clearly you haven't done your research as you'll note that
a) "teaching to the boards" is a misnomer (or so i am told)
and b) most second year successful test takers will note that 5-6 weeks is the optimal concentrated study time for step 1 -- beyond that results in diminishing returns and "forgotten" high yield facts. hence "time off before the boards" is irrelevant as long as students get two months off.

If you think differences in medical schools lead to any sort of dent in your step 1 score, you are so mistaken. there's a caribbean contingent which consistently clears 230 because of mechanical study habits. of course they have to, because their education is considered substandard- no one would argue that every US medical school is better than any island one- and does that mean will they become better doctors? (who knows). the point is, individual strengths and efforts will lead to successful usmle outcome.

but, i'm not even in med school, so what do I know.

good luck with your decision!

Thats the point, youll be hard pressed to find many schools (at least when i was applying) that would give you that much time. Many schools (could very well be different now) routinely only give 1-3 weeks DEDICATED time for the boards. Also, i think the point is to try to maximize your score and keep all doors open. Anyone could study for a little bit and pass, but im sure you gunners want to smoke the exam, and it is something important to consider.

 

[anon-y-mouse]

This is actually one of the best questions ever posted on this forum. This is the most important test of your career, it will determine your general competitiveness and ability to secure interviews more than any other piece of info in your application. MCAT/SATs do not correlate perfectly with the USMLE, eg, i never took the SATs, got a 31 on the MCAT (admittedly i did not study), but got a 250+ on the Step I (more than 2 SD). It depends on your personal ability to an extent of course, but your school can either help you or hinder you with how its setup.

Your school does matter b/c of how the first two years are formatted, is it old fashioned (biochem, anat, nl, then path) or systems (all presented together). Some schools will also have more or less time to prepare after 2nd year is over. USC gives their students a relatively large amount of time and prep. As a result of the new systems curriculum and the time alotted to study for the boards each class in the new curriculum has increased the school average 5 points each year. My class (2006) had an average of 225 or so.

No one is arguing that the step 1 is one of the most important pieces of information in residency applications. However, the question was NOT "Is my USMLE step 1 important?".

To choose a school based on USMLE success is so unreal, you really have no idea how much those components contribute to success. 5 points? Is that even outside the margin of error on a 280+ point test? Did the extra study time come recently?

If anything, the systems-based curriculum probably had some influence, but isn't that the new de facto standard? the traditional approach has become old hat. Just as well, an updated edition of First Aid could have explained the increase. And most importantly, correlation is not causation.

I would argue that study habits and techniques, and study materials have the biggest influence on one's board scores. Why? The best step 1 scorers from all medical schools have many various study habits, techniques, and materials in common.

 

[drmota]

listen to anon-y-mouse. that's one smart dude.
-mota

 

[Plastikos]

No one is arguing that the step 1 is one of the most important pieces of information in residency applications. However, the question was NOT "Is my USMLE step 1 important?".

To choose a school based on USMLE success is so unreal, you really have no idea how much those components contribute to success. 5 points? Is that even outside the margin of error on a 280+ point test? Did the extra study time come recently?

If anything, the systems-based curriculum probably had some influence, but isn't that the new de facto standard? the traditional approach has become old hat. Just as well, an updated edition of First Aid could have explained the increase. And most importantly, correlation is not causation.

I would argue that study habits and techniques, and study materials have the biggest influence on one's board scores. Why? The best step 1 scorers from all medical schools have many various study habits, techniques, and materials in common.

A five point increase EACH YEAR, EVERY YEAR for the whole class, its very significant given most schools avgs. drop after a change in curriculum for a couple years. I agree the biggest contribution nationally to increased success is the quality of the review materials. Extra study time is new, and of course more time (with limits) exposed to them the better you do. Its simply a measure of the quality/success of a school and should be treated as such. You would be foolish to overlook such data or choose a school with many years of low averages and just attribute it nothing more than a crappy bookstore, no?

Its a piece of a large puzzle. BTW, if you really want to smoke the boards, get an upperclassmens advice on good review books and buy many and use them from the beginning. Resist the urge not to, nothing will increase the likelihood of crushing the boards more.

 

[anon-y-mouse]

Does the curriculum also change "each year, every year"? Maybe students just got tired of crappy scores so they decided to shape up. Either way. Props to the systems-based approach; from my reading, it seems so much better.

ps - What's better than FA?

pps - Are you a gunner?

 

[Plastikos]

Does the curriculum also change "each year, every year"? Maybe students just got tired of crappy scores so they decided to shape up. Either way. Props to the systems-based approach; from my reading, it seems so much better.

ps - What's better than FA?

pps - Are you a gunner?

FA is okay if you want to pass, and for consolidation at the end of studying.

In no way shape or form am i a gunner, i just know whats important. Board scores and being cool (sorry for those of you that this does not come natural j/k) ie your colleagues/teachers liking you.

I am a slacker, yet incredibly efficient. I like to screw around and party. School is what you make it. So go ahead and live in some greatly ranked cold climate school with relatively little fun stuff to do and where the weather keeps the women clothed!

 

[SlippingSloth]

FA is okay if you want to pass, and for consolidation at the end of studying.

In no way shape or form am i a gunner, i just know whats important. Board scores and being cool (sorry for those of you that this does not come natural j/k) ie your colleagues/teachers liking you.

I am a slacker, yet incredibly efficient. I like to screw around and party. School is what you make it. So go ahead and live in some greatly ranked cold climate school with relatively little fun stuff to do and where the weather keeps the women clothed!

Damn straight Plastikos Preach on

 

[Rafa]

In no way shape or form am i a gunner, i just know whats important. Board scores and being cool (sorry for those of you that this does not come natural j/k) ie your colleagues/teachers liking you.

I am a slacker, yet incredibly efficient. I like to screw around and party. School is what you make it. So go ahead and live in some greatly ranked cold climate school with relatively little fun stuff to do and where the weather keeps the women clothed!

 

[SailCrazy]

Hey guys,

just wondering if there is some kind of ranking of how well certain schools do on the step 1 boards?

i've heard that ucsd kids do pretty well, but i'm wondering how the rest of the schools do.

thanks

I know this subject has been discussed many, many times here on SDN...

Of course there is always some disagreement, but it seems to be generally accepted that Michigan is by far the best.

 

[potato51]

Yeah, I'm of the thought that average board scores don't matter, but perhaps the difference between Step 1 and MCAT averages might indicate which institutions aid your preparation the most.

Personally, it doesn't matter as I care only about my individual effort. But as for your question, I hear that UPenn, Mayo, Baylor, Stanford are schools that consistently average in the mid-230's.

 

[ahumdinger]

Yeah, I'm of the thought that average board scores don't matter, but perhaps the difference between Step 1 and MCAT averages might indicate which institutions aid your preparation the most.

Personally, it doesn't matter as I care only about my individual effort. But as for your question, I hear that UPenn, Mayo, Baylor, Stanford are schools that consistently average in the mid-230's.

yes, I heard that after Baylor switched from a 2 year preclinical to a 1.5 year preclinical, with 6 months clinical clerkships before step 1, their board scores went way up.

WashU also has astounding board scores, and they have perhaps the most traditional curriculum. But then again, the student body has the highest MCAT scores in the country.

 

[infiniti]

Some schools do infact teach to the boards. Curricula changes may not be more important than personal study habits, but it's effect can't be denied. Schools often see a change in board scores whenever they change curriculum (this definitely implies soemthing). It is also true that the best medical school out there do not necessarily have the highest board scores. Some schools use their board scores as selling point, others could care less.

 

[Marie_]

Hey guys,

just wondering if there is some kind of ranking of how well certain schools do on the step 1 boards?

i've heard that ucsd kids do pretty well, but i'm wondering how the rest of the schools do.

thanks

I believe UPenn has the highest board scores in the nation. Much due to the fact that they have more clinical time before step 1 than the other schools (only 1.5 years in the classroom).

 

[dulop]

A five point increase EACH YEAR, EVERY YEAR for the whole class, its very significant given most schools avgs. drop after a change in curriculum for a couple years. I agree the biggest contribution nationally to increased success is the quality of the review materials. Extra study time is new, and of course more time (with limits) exposed to them the better you do. Its simply a measure of the quality/success of a school and should be treated as such. You would be foolish to overlook such data or choose a school with many years of low averages and just attribute it nothing more than a crappy bookstore, no?

Its a piece of a large puzzle. BTW, if you really want to smoke the boards, get an upperclassmens advice on good review books and buy many and use them from the beginning. Resist the urge not to, nothing will increase the likelihood of crushing the boards more.

Are you saying you strongly recommend getting a number or prep/review books starting early in the first year (on the basis of an upperclassmen's recommendation) and study them continuously along with the normal coursework?

 

[Law2Doc]

I believe UPenn has the highest board scores in the nation. Much due to the fact that they have more clinical time before step 1 than the other schools (only 1.5 years in the classroom).

Why don't we just list 100 or so schools and say they are all best. All this speculation is silly because the board scores are not publicised by other than a few schools, so no one could know which was the best (I think the schools know their own score and the average, but probably not how other schools did -- it would be a leap to say who was best). Schools like Fla make their scores as compared to the average available someplace on the web. A few other schools do this too. Anecdotally, a lot of the higher ranking schools on the US News list have had periodic bad years, often coinciding with switching around of curriculum, adding more clinical, PBL, etc. So it's a waste of time to speculate who has good scores versus bad. Schools that give you more time to prepare probably have seen benefits. Schools that incorporate more old board questions into their exams probably also see benefits. But not something I would worry about when choosing a school. Just buy the same board review books everyone else does and study like a maniac. It's like everything else in this career path.

 

[Plastikos]

Are you saying you strongly recommend getting a number or prep/review books starting early in the first year (on the basis of an upperclassmen's recommendation) and study them continuously along with the normal coursework?

Thats exactly what im saying. Not only will you save time, you wont be pissed when you study for the boards and find out anything you needed to know was nicely organized in a small book.


Also, clinicals before Step 1 shouldnt make that much of a difference if at all. Step 1 is basic science, i dont see how taking it after clinicals would help. Thats what Step 2 is.

 

[SailCrazy]

I believe UPenn has the highest board scores in the nation. Much due to the fact that they have more clinical time before step 1 than the other schools (only 1.5 years in the classroom).

...Also, clinicals before Step 1 shouldnt make that much of a difference if at all. Step 1 is basic science, i dont see how taking it after clinicals would help. Thats what Step 2 is.

That's what I was thinking, but I didn't want to criticize someone for being off about step 1 if it was, in fact, me that was the clueless one!

 

[Howard Roark]

I would argue that asking about class performance on Step I is one of the most important questions you can ask while interviewing at a school. I'm finishing up my 4th-year of med school right now and having just gone through the residency application process I can tell you that your step 1 score substantially decides what specialty you can go enter (I matched into ortho surg and will find out where on Thursday (i.e. match day) ). Granted that a really smart dude (or dudette) can kick a$$ on STEP 1 no matter where they attend med school..but why not play the averages and assume that a school must be doing "something right" if their students always do well on step 1. Believe me (or not).....the school's average step 1 score is soooooo much more important than all of the things I hilariously thought were important back when I was interviewing for med school...things like PBL, class diversity, small group sessions, note-taking services, etc. My classmates and I sit around and laugh at ourselves for asking about those silly things back when we were interviewing. Anyway...that's my two cents...take it or leave it...believe me I don't have all the answers but if I had to re-apply to med school my number one question would be:

What is your average step 1 score?

Good luck to all and to all a good-night

 

[Plastikos]

I would argue that asking about class performance on Step I is one of the most important questions you can ask while interviewing at a school. I'm finishing up my 4th-year of med school right now and having just gone through the residency application process I can tell you that your step 1 score substantially decides what specialty you can go enter (I matched into ortho surg and will find out where on Thursday (i.e. match day) ). Granted that a really smart dude (or dudette) can kick a$$ on STEP 1 no matter where they attend med school..but why not play the averages and assume that a school must be doing "something right" if their students always do well on step 1. Believe me (or not).....the school's average step 1 score is soooooo much more important than all of the things I hilariously thought were important back when I was interviewing for med school...things like PBL, class diversity, small group sessions, note-taking services, etc. My classmates and I sit around and laugh at ourselves for asking about those silly things back when we were interviewing. Anyway...that's my two cents...take it or leave it...believe me I don’t have all the answers but if I had to re-apply to med school my number one question would be:

What is your average step 1 score?

Good luck to all and to all a good-night

Hope you have your flame suit ready, cuz a bunch of ppl who know much more than you (of course) are going to tell you just how foolish you are.

I would add to your question: And what do you do to help your students prepare?

Seriously, at the Integrated Plastic Surgery Residency interview at Michigan this year they put up a slide that showed how they screened and chose apps to invite. #1-USMLE score>240, then some other stuff, none of which had to do with serving your community, etc..while those are great endeavors for sure. Which reminds me, if you have a required student project of some sort during the first two years, NEVER choose the good community project, do clinical or basic research and kill two birds with one stone.

 

[Twitch]

Rather than asking [the typical] question about averages, I'd ask (to see if it'll suit *you* better):

1. What are the top 3 ways your school helps student perform well on the boards?

2. If you could change 1 thing about the existing system to further help students perform better on the boards what would that be?

3. Which facilities do your MSIII rotate through and what type of responsibilities do they typically have?

4. What are 3 ways your program sets itself apart from what's offered elsewhere?

Basically the averages may be high and they school may even be doing something "right" that is helping. But you need to find out exactly what that is and whether it'll suit you. It may work for the "average" guy - but does it rock your boat? Will it help *you* score high on STEP 1? Step 2 (from what I understand - which isn't that much) doesn't matter as much because you're interviews/match is based on 1 - yes?

 

[45408]

Stanford, I believe. They averaged a 237 last year, I think.

 

[Zoom-Zoom]

this is a dumb question. board scores depend on the individual student and how much he or she studies. if a school accepts students who do really well on standardized tests (mcat, etc.) then it follows that their scores have the potential to be higher.

sorry dude but this is such bs. how much the individual studies is totally dependent on where he/she goes to school and how much time they are given to prepare. Different curriculums prepare students differently for the boards as well...this is something that I think most med students agree on.

I agree that this factor is not a great criteria for selecting med schools. And, certainly you can do just as well at any school if you study right. This does not mean that all schools prepare their students equally for step 1 though.

 

[Law2Doc]

sorry dude but this is such bs. how much the individual studies is totally dependent on where he/she goes to school and how much time they are given to prepare. Different curriculums prepare students differently for the boards as well...this is something that I think most med students agree on.

I agree that this factor is not a great criteria for selecting med schools. And, certainly you can do just as well at any school if you study right. This does not mean that all schools prepare their students equally for step 1 though.

Agree with what you said here, but would suggest that since you don't know which schools have higher board scores than which (and I would suggest from anecdotal evidence that some of the top schools are actually not the top in this), you really cannot use this info. If you don't know board scores, you cannot gauge who is preparing its students well. Many schools claim higher than average board scores to their interviewees (more in fact than seems statistically possible ). Unless the school actually gives a firm number, posts its boards on the web or otherwise publishes it, I would just take it with a grain of salt... Find another criteria with which to pick a school. Good luck.

 

[Law2Doc]

sorry dude but this is such bs. how much the individual studies is totally dependent on where he/she goes to school and how much time they are given to prepare. Different curriculums prepare students differently for the boards as well...this is something that I think most med students agree on.

I agree that this factor is not a great criteria for selecting med schools. And, certainly you can do just as well at any school if you study right. This does not mean that all schools prepare their students equally for step 1 though.

Agree with what you said here, but would suggest that since you don't know which schools have higher board scores than which (and I would suggest from anecdotal evidence that some of the top schools are actually not the top in this), you really cannot use this info. If you don't know board scores, you cannot gauge who is preparing its students well. Many schools claim higher than average board scores to their interviewees (more in fact than seems statistically possible ). Unless the school actually gives a firm number, posts its boards on the web or otherwise publishes it, I would just take it with a grain of salt... Find another criteria with which to pick a school. Good luck.

 

[BozoSparky]

Also, clinicals before Step 1 shouldnt make that much of a difference if at all. Step 1 is basic science, i dont see how taking it after clinicals would help. Thats what Step 2 is.

Oh, I don't know about that. Cementing what you learned in the first two years could be an advantage.

 

[LabMonster]

A five point increase EACH YEAR, EVERY YEAR for the whole class, its very significant given most schools avgs. drop after a change in curriculum for a couple years. I agree the biggest contribution nationally to increased success is the quality of the review materials. Extra study time is new, and of course more time (with limits) exposed to them the better you do. Its simply a measure of the quality/success of a school and should be treated as such. You would be foolish to overlook such data or choose a school with many years of low averages and just attribute it nothing more than a crappy bookstore, no?

Its a piece of a large puzzle. BTW, if you really want to smoke the boards, get an upperclassmens advice on good review books and buy many and use them from the beginning. Resist the urge not to, nothing will increase the likelihood of crushing the boards more.

And if you've already committed to a school - check these out.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=262086

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=215684

The best way to study for them seems to be: get your review books early and study them WITH the different classes/modules. Makes sense. That way reviewing really is reviewing and not learning.

 

[Plastikos]

Oh, I don't know about that. Cementing what you learned in the first two years could be an advantage.

What you learn on the wards is totally different and is management, which is not what is tested on Step I, thats whats tested on Step II. Step I is strictly basic science.

 

[BozoSparky]

What you learn on the wards is totally different and is management, which is not what is tested on Step I, thats whats tested on Step II. Step I is strictly basic science.

Well, I haven't been on the wards yet, so I have to deny my wish to argue. I'll take your word for it...for now.

 

[Marie_]

Also, clinicals before Step 1 shouldnt make that much of a difference if at all. Step 1 is basic science, i dont see how taking it after clinicals would help. Thats what Step 2 is.

Actually Step 1 is very grounded in clinical knowledge, and thats why clinical exposure is supposed to be such an advantage.

Here is the step 1 example question they list on the official USMLE site: http://www.usmle.org/step1/s1tqf.htm

Example Question 1
A 32-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes mellitus has had progressive renal failure over the past 2 years. She has not yet started dialysis. Examination shows no abnormalities. Her hemoglobin concentration is 9 g/dL, hematocrit is 28%, and mean corpuscular volume is 94 µm3. A blood smear shows normochromic, normocytic cells. Which of the following is the most likely cause?

A. Acute blood loss
B. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia
C. Erythrocyte enzyme deficiency
D. Erythropoietin deficiency
E. Immunohemolysis
F. Microangiopathic hemolysis
G. Polycythemia vera
H. Sickle cell disease
I. Sideroblastic anemia
J. b-Thalassemia trait

 

[medgator]

Actually Step 1 is very grounded in clinical knowledge, and thats why clinical exposure is supposed to be such an advantage.

Here is the step 1 example question they list on the official USMLE site: http://www.usmle.org/step1/s1tqf.htm

Example Question 1
A 32-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes mellitus has had progressive renal failure over the past 2 years. She has not yet started dialysis. Examination shows no abnormalities. Her hemoglobin concentration is 9 g/dL, hematocrit is 28%, and mean corpuscular volume is 94 µm3. A blood smear shows normochromic, normocytic cells. Which of the following is the most likely cause?

A. Acute blood loss
B. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia
C. Erythrocyte enzyme deficiency
D. Erythropoietin deficiency
E. Immunohemolysis
F. Microangiopathic hemolysis
G. Polycythemia vera
H. Sickle cell disease
I. Sideroblastic anemia
J. b-Thalassemia trait

If you did well in systemic path (specifically hemepath), you can easily answer that question without stepping foot on the wards.

Someone earlier had mentioned UF with regard to board score averages. UF's board score avg 3 yrs ago was ~227. Last year I heard it was upwards of 230++. I definitely agree with Howard Roark that USMLE scores are important, if you are unsure as to what you want to do and want to keep your options open. Having a good board score in that situation is paramount. Lots (not ALL) of the competitive specialties will use cutoffs for interviews come residency time. Some schools have good curriculums that specifically teach to USMLE Step 1. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, since this material is clinically important for you on the wards.

 

[Plastikos]

Actually Step 1 is very grounded in clinical knowledge, and thats why clinical exposure is supposed to be such an advantage.

Here is the step 1 example question they list on the official USMLE site: http://www.usmle.org/step1/s1tqf.htm

Example Question 1
A 32-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes mellitus has had progressive renal failure over the past 2 years. She has not yet started dialysis. Examination shows no abnormalities. Her hemoglobin concentration is 9 g/dL, hematocrit is 28%, and mean corpuscular volume is 94 µm3. A blood smear shows normochromic, normocytic cells. Which of the following is the most likely cause?

A. Acute blood loss
B. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia
C. Erythrocyte enzyme deficiency
D. Erythropoietin deficiency
E. Immunohemolysis
F. Microangiopathic hemolysis
G. Polycythemia vera
H. Sickle cell disease
I. Sideroblastic anemia
J. b-Thalassemia trait

That requires no clinical knowledge, i didnt say it asks you to recreate your favorite Organic Chem experiment, thats how ppl get thrown off. They give you basic science questions in a "clinical vignette". Your best chance is to ignore the stuff and focus on what the REAL QUESTION is. There will be plenty of 1.5 page questions about some person with lymphoma and at the end it will ask you, "Whats the mechanism of X drug?". Again, its basic science within the field of medicine, of course there will be some clinical scenarios. Absolutely zero of which should require any clinical experience.

BTW, i have already taken Step I, and the clinicals, so im not making stuff up. Ppl like to glamorize certain things and try to make you believe something matter when it just plain doesnt, they know you want to act like a real dr., not be a librarian.

 

[drmota]

Stanford, I believe. They averaged a 237 last year, I think.

if that's true stanford is the hotness.
-mota

 

[Howard Roark]

Increased clinical knowledge surely would not HURT your score on step 1 but I don't think it is as important as basic knowledge from the first 2 years of medical school. And I've also taken step 1 and completed both years 3 and most of year 4 (only 1 week of didactics, 5 weeks in Africa, and 2 weeks of radiology left) so my opinion is based on actual experience for whatever that is worth. Lots of step 1 is pattern recognition/key associations so definitely know all the "classical findings" like:

"owl's eye" appearance --> Reed Sternberg Cell --> Hodgkin's disease

The toughest thing about the clinical years is figuring out how to do crap like ordering an CT scan after 9 pm....who do you call? etc. And I dont remember any questions about that on step 1.

But again....the clinical years will not hurt your step 1 performance by any means...they will only help......but not the most imortant thing IMHO

 

[Plastikos]

If you did well in systemic path (specifically hemepath), you can easily answer that question without stepping foot on the wards.

Someone earlier had mentioned UF with regard to board score averages. UF's board score avg 3 yrs ago was ~227. Last year I heard it was upwards of 230++. I definitely agree with Howard Roark that USMLE scores are important, if you are unsure as to what you want to do and want to keep your options open. Having a good board score in that situation is paramount. Lots (not ALL) of the competitive specialties will use cutoffs for interviews come residency time. Some schools have good curriculums that specifically teach to USMLE Step 1. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, since this material is clinically important for you on the wards.

As for the material being important on the wards, eh, i have to disagree. You waste so much time learning drugs that no one uses, studying diseases that you hardly ever see/or will see, but thats whats known the best. Your USMLE knowledge will solely be useful for pimping situations, and in my experience this is just used to pass the time, and only related to your pts care b/c that typical dz spurred the question.

 

[GasGuy2010]

Agree with what you said here, but would suggest that since you don't know which schools have higher board scores than which (and I would suggest from anecdotal evidence that some of the top schools are actually not the top in this), you really cannot use this info. If you don't know board scores, you cannot gauge who is preparing its students well. Many schools claim higher than average board scores to their interviewees (more in fact than seems statistically possible ). Unless the school actually gives a firm number, posts its boards on the web or otherwise publishes it, I would just take it with a grain of salt... Find another criteria with which to pick a school. Good luck.

Well I would suggest, since we are all interviewing or going on 2nd looks to various schools: Let's ASK each school what their average USMLE Step 1 score was last year and what they do to prepare their students?? Seems like that should be pretty doable.

 

[medgator]

As for the material being important on the wards, eh, i have to disagree. You waste so much time learning drugs that no one uses, studying diseases that you hardly ever see/or will see, but thats whats known the best. Your USMLE knowledge will solely be useful for pimping situations, and in my experience this is just used to pass the time, and only related to your pts care b/c that typical dz spurred the question.

The best physicians I have ever met have a solid foundation in pharm and pathophysiology of disease. A lot of the info on Step I IS minutia, but the basic pathophys and pharm you will find on Step I is definitely important for being a good clinician.

 

[jjmack]

At vandy it's usually in the mid 230's. Straight from the dean of students. I on the other hand may lower the avg ;-)

 

[Law2Doc]

At vandy it's usually in the mid 230's. Straight from the dean of students. I on the other hand may lower the avg ;-)

"Usually" in a range is meaningless -- lots of schools will tell you stuff like this -- but you don't know how many years he's going back to get the numbers he wants -- maybe the school did well over the decade but did horribly this past year. Unless someone is willing to go on record and say that in the summer of 2005, our school scored X and the average was Y, you have to dismiss it as fluff.

 

[dbhvt]

"Usually" in a range is meaningless -- lots of schools will tell you stuff like this -- but you don't know how many years he's going back to get the numbers he wants -- maybe the school did well over the decade but did horribly this past year. Unless someone is willing to go on record and say that in the summer of 2005, our school scored X and the average was Y, you have to dismiss it as fluff.

I don't think that makes it entirely useless information. Certainly it's less reliable than published, but I'm not going to act as if I had never heard that peice of information just because I can't confirm it. It's like this:

God forbid I end up a dermatologist, and a 17-year old woman wants accutane for her acne. I ask her if she is pregnant, or could be pregnant. She says no. I'm not going to pay any attention to what she says, and am going to get regular pregnancy tests while she's on the drug.

Bah, I can't think of a good specific example of the other side of things, but you can imagine a case where you might ask someone if they have a family history of heart disease and they say yeah, I think maybe my uncle blah blah, but gosh, I'm not really sure, doc... or, no, I'm pretty sure noone has had heart disease. Those are going to be relatively unreliable reports, but you can still glean something from what they said, and make a better decision because of it.

I submit board scores are more like a family history of heart disease than pregnancy in a woman taking accutane. (ie, it's not critical, but still helpful, so you can do something with less than perfect information--ie, it's not "meaningless", as you suggest.) I also submit that most of the information on which we base most of our decisions in life are like that. Very few of them are critically dependent on absolute reliability.

 

[Law2Doc]

I submit board scores are more like a family history of heart disease than pregnancy in a woman taking accutane. (ie, it's not critical, but still helpful, so you can do something with less than perfect information--ie, it's not "meaningless", as you suggest.) I also submit that most of the information on which we base most of our decisions in life are like that. Very few of them are critically dependent on absolute reliability.

OK, but I was going back to what I suggested before, which was that far more schools than statistically possible seem to say that they have "above average" board scores. Which might be true if one school means this year, another means over the last ten years, still another means since the beginning of the boards. I'm fairly sure that schools are quick to gloss over a single bad year, even if its recent. Saying scores are "usually" in a range is a good example of this kind of doublespeak. But unless they pin their most recent scores down for you, you may be getting suckered into bad info. The board scores are not released, and thus shouldn't be used as a major criteria to select your school. You have no reliable source on which to rely.

 

[jjmack]

I am going to dig around and see if I can find the actual averages for the last few years.