youngone wrote:
Rude, arrogant, childish, sad....

but THE TRUTH.

An insult? I merely posted the obvious.

DID HE NOT FAIL BY 1 POINT?

NNL, hit them books and stop your pathetic whining.

Data wrote:
Youngones post seems pretty out of line to me. I wasnt aware NNL had even taken the exam, but for Youngones to use the formers result as a crutch for insensitive insults is pretty sad.

Lets strat afresh, without any underhanded jibes. In a bid for clarity, I'll summarize.

These are my contentions:

1) The USMLE is perpetually being updated with new questions.
2) Most of these questions will concern the same basic knowledge our review books already contain.
3) Some will reflect the newest advances in medical fields, but only that are deemed to be "student" or "pre-residency" level. What I mean by this is that highly advanced, highly minute advanced in sub specialties wont be tested.
4) The USMLE clearly outlines the objectives of the test. However, these objectives only broadly define tested material, which means that specific advancements wont be alluded to.
5a) The statement at USMLE.org about broad based learning being the best method for the exam stresses that minute details will not be tested to a significant degree, and that strong conceptual fundamentals are the key.
5b) The balance between various topics might also shift, but always gradually. Never so suddenly so as to kill off the accuracy of the exam.
6) Both textbooks and review books are updated regularly. For all we think we know about the exam, via speaking with seniors and fellow exam takers, test specialists like Kaplan know more. The preface to goljan's pathology, for example, clarifies that. These people have spoken to a ton more students than all of us combined. Unless, of course, if we have a lurker with a fetish for USMLE students.
7) While textbooks and review books are both updated with fundamental information considered necessary to be known by students, textbooks also contain a lot of detail that is not required for the exam. This means two things: 1) Textbooks serve the purpose of being a reference only and 2) Any review books you study should be as recent as possible.
8) A lot of people under or overestimate the number of questions they had on a particular subject. We all know we always remember the hard, bad questions more after an exam. The accounts of such people certainly should be considered, but it forms only one, and not the sole, source of information.
9) A lot of people arent a good judge of how adequately prepared they are, and fail to identify their weaker areas. Perhaps I will be one of them too.
10) A certain amount of variability certainly exists in the exam, as pointed out at their site, and as test takers will tell us. While this variability is enough to cause a reasonable fluctuation in scores, it isnt so extreme as to cause well prepared students to fail.
11) Kaplan is still the best core material for the exam, combined with either BRS or Goljan for Pathology. Qbank, USMLEworld, and FA will reinforce and supplement all areas. I believe this preparation in itself should be adequate. However, if one wishes to, he/she can switch to thicker review texts for certain subjects.


I base my information on:

1) Information on usmle.org
2) Information in FA
3) Information I gained by speaking to American doctors during my electives
4) Information I gained by speaking with local people in my city and from my college who have taken the exam

In the interest of drawing accurate conclusions, I realize that 1) and 2) are more objective and more reflective of reality. 1) comes from usmle.org, and they certainly wont mislead us. 2) I am willing to trust as well, since they're the top ranked usmle source. 3) I trust reasonably as well. 4) I consider, but always with a grain of salt.

It is also understood that no review book contains ALL the information we need. They're composed to strike an excellent balance between brevity and detail. If someone could do full textbooks for the exam, and do them inside out, he would certainly be at an advantage. However this would take an inordinate investment of time.

One final point. AMGs almost always match. I think the figure is 93 point something %. My guess is the AMGs that dont match really, really suck. In other words, AMGs are going to steal a set amount of positions away. The residency slots that remain are competed for by IMGs. In essence, we all compete against each other, not against AMGs. You have to do substantially better than an AMG to have an equally appealing application.

Since all IMGs have the same "weak" areas, ie molecular biology and possibly behavioral sciences, the playing field remains level. Furthermore, the breakdown of scores has been analyzed for both AMGs and IMGs and American programs are well aware of where IMGs falter. The trend has been IMGs doing better in pathology, AMGs better in behavioral sciences. Finally, the USMLE scores are stastically generated, and variation in the difficulty of the exam is compensated for.

I dont care to "prove" anything here. But I find it distasteful when people harm themselves by hinging on something too hard. I acknowledge the assessment by certain test takers that molecular biology screwed them over. However, to me, this offers the following possible explanations:

1) They really were asked so much molecular biology so as to hit their score very hard
2) Their assessment of how many questions they had was innaccurate. While the exam might have had the upper limit of the "norm", the fact that the test taker was unable to answer a lot of them has caused him to inflate their number
3) A mix of points 1 and 2

Now, my analysis is that 1) is a subjective assessment of the exam. Im sure as hell I wont remember exactly how many questions I got from any subject when I walk out of a stressful 8 hour exam. We also have the problem of recall bias. Point 2), on the other hand, has an objective and reliable basis. While they both contribute to my analysis, they dont do so equally.

GOGETA wrote:
Sorry but I do not have time read all this, but did anyone said my name?
if yes can some one please defend me.

jazmil wrote:

I think this thread has outlived any possible usefulness.

Somebody please close it.