No interviews!

it all about exams, funding....Isn't it?, it is not about profession or art to be a surgeon (old standards) USMLE Step 1 is indicator of how hard you can study but to me has a little significance, Step 2 or 3 is better prediction of physician abilities. Yes, for the interviews there are no other score to compare. I know some excellent people with low Step 1 score and very high Step 2 like 260 applying second and even third time but every time get eliminated by this screening process....

A line needs to be drawn someplace tigran. Unless you can think of a better way of screening the hundreds of seemingly identical applications every program recieves. We've all been there and it sucks, but for the time being this is the best way.

Why exactly is step 2 a better indication of your potential as a physician than step 1? They are both tests, which combine an element of innate inteligence with tedt taking ability.

the reason why step scores are so important is because it's the only gauge thats uniform across the board. clinical grades, etc. can be swayed by the grading scale of the institution..and every institution wants their candidates to look good. Also, most people don't take step II before applying..and lots of places don't even require it to graduate.

people think step 2 is more indicative of physician because it's more clinically relavant. I highly disagree. I don't think any of them are particularly good at predicting anything other than you ability to memorize and think through things (which is predictive, in a sense)

BUT I can say this about step 1.. it's more of a thinking exam. People don't like it because it's not 'medicine' but the truth is.. it is. It's the basic science foundation of it. It's a lot of detail, but you *should* know most of what's on that exam. For the most part, step I is designed to test your thinking process, and throws in details so it tests your knowledge and your thinking. Step 2 is more of a pattern recognition exam where you see clinical scenarios and choose what fits.. and move on.

I didn't do very well in my first two years because it was blunt memorization, which is closer to step 2. I focused during those years on understanding A + B = C, and WHY A is a, and B is B, and if you put them together, = C. So as a result, I did better on step I relative to how I did on the years 1/2 exams. And when I say I did better, I mean like opposite sides of the spectrum. And no, I didn't study that long.. so how do you explain that?

Also.. yes, you have to draw a line somewhere.. How else are they going to tell.. from your application? What about your application screams out that you DESERVE ortho more than any one of us? Nothing.. I'm sure, because if you were able to do it.. we've probably thought of it to, and put it in our application.

The truth is they are just looking to see who fits into their residency personality wise. Each interviewer has their own opinion of it.

And for the most part, interview requests are random, but there is consistancy. People who get 'good interviews' tend to get a good number of them (they're the AOA, top school, 245+, research, good letters).. and then people who aren't the best candidates, get few interviews. People who are anywhere in the middle... get more of a mixed bag.. that's just the way it goes.

Deal people.. this is my second time around

Step 1 is not about clinical medicine or orthopaedic surgery. Also you will see it all the time - excellent test taker but has shaky hands and avoids surgeries.

You are grossly mistaken. I think step 1 success is important, not because it selects for the "smartest" applicant or the best test taker, but rather the applicant who has the presence of mind to come up with a study plan, follow it, dedicate themselves wholly to kicking that test's ass, and in the end do so because they knew they had to get the job done to land a good residency. That test is about dedication, work ethic, and mental capacity more than test taking skills or pure intelligence, and I believe the aforementioned qualities are at the core of what makes a good resident and physician.

I second the above.. Although, I think it's more of a 'thinking' exam.. but the opinion above is highly valid.