Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Starfish31415 said:

Definitely felt like less than 30% for me as well. That's technically more than the 1/6 from previous years, but still small enough to justify at least studying it last. 

I mean, I felt like there were as many OB questions as IM questions, but clearly waaaaaaay less than 30% of the exam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Did you guys do a practice test at your school? We had one at McGill and it really seemed like it is still 1/6 obs/gyn, 1/6 surgery etc... Hopefully it is still the case on exam day. But it seems

I have no hard evidence of that statement! It's just been something a few of my classmates have tossed around the grapevine. I agree it would change studying significantly so if anyone finds out for s

Don't know for sure. The actual test might be more random, harder, easier. Who knows. At the end of the day, they decide what the pass line is, and more than 95% of students pass. Can't know for sure

3 minutes ago, Arztin said:

I mean, I felt like there were as many OB questions as IM questions, but clearly waaaaaaay less than 30% of the exam.

Same, I was surprised by the amount of Obs questions on mine as well. And a fair amount of psych too. If the practice test is a good representation of the actual exam, I would say we're safe to prioritize the other sections. Of course there's no way to know for sure until the day of. 

On a semi-related note, does anyone know what percentile is needed to pass? They seem fairly clandestine about the marking scheme. How many ppl generally need to re-write each year? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Starfish31415 said:

Same, I was surprised by the amount of Obs questions on mine as well. And a fair amount of psych too. If the practice test is a good representation of the actual exam, I would say we're safe to prioritize the other sections. Of course there's no way to know for sure until the day of. 

On a semi-related note, does anyone know what percentile is needed to pass? They seem fairly clandestine about the marking scheme. How many ppl generally need to re-write each year? 

From listening to the 45 min video, it appears they will decide on a new passing score based on how well everyone does this spring session. Also heard about a new grading system they will be following. The scores will no longer be 500-700 or so. It'll be a max of 400. If someone could confirm if there is anything documented would be interesting.
I wouldn't waste my time on this though, as it won't change the outcome either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DermJuly2018PGY1 said:

low 60s for MCQ and low 70s for CDM

Anything to worry about? Is this a pass on the test, or still a lot of work to be done?

Don't know for sure. The actual test might be more random, harder, easier. Who knows. At the end of the day, they decide what the pass line is, and more than 95% of students pass. Can't know for sure how predictive that practice test will be for sure. It wouldn't hurt to study ha :)

I'm definitely going for the old strat - PH/ethics, paeds, obs-gyn, psych first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most ppl were getting around 60% on the MCQ and around 70% on the CDMQ. 

It's been very confusing in terms of the content on this exam - it's been said its the same questions and the same objectives. But maybe the weighting is different? Overall - not very clear at all from the MCC on how exactly this exam vs the old exam differs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2018 at 9:31 PM, Organomegaly said:

Did anyone's school provide averages and distributions for the marks so we know how we stand relative to others?

My score was 80 on MCQ and 90 on CDM. 

Holy cow. I know most of our fellow classmates I spoke to didn't have scores that high. We're all batting 60-70% from what I can tell, higher on CDM than on MCQ. Share your studying wisdom please 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Sisushi said:

Holy cow. I know most of our fellow classmates I spoke to didn't have scores that high. We're all batting 60-70% from what I can tell, higher on CDM than on MCQ. Share your studying wisdom please 

I just finished writing the USMLE Step 2 CK by the time I wrote the MCC practice test so to be honest I was already studied up for it! The style of questions on the MCC is definitely different though and there is far more emphasis on primary care topics compared to the USMLE. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Organomegaly said:

I just finished writing the USMLE Step 2 CK by the time I wrote the MCC practice test so to be honest I was already studied up for it! The style of questions on the MCC is definitely different though and there is far more emphasis on primary care topics compared to the USMLE. 

Did you find the questions easier than Step 2? I've heard from classmates that wrote Step 2 that MCC is more straightforward info with a few wild ones but Step 2 is really more indepth/challenging. I've been using Step 2 resources to study, so it would be good to get an idea of what the exam is like compared to that! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2018 at 9:41 AM, lil_doc said:

Did you find the questions easier than Step 2? I've heard from classmates that wrote Step 2 that MCC is more straightforward info with a few wild ones but Step 2 is really more indepth/challenging. I've been using Step 2 resources to study, so it would be good to get an idea of what the exam is like compared to that! 

Yes, they were easier. The Step 2 has a large emphasis on internal medicine (probably 40% of the test is IM) and understanding physiology and pathophysiology. There are also a lot of diagnosis and management questions. The scope is broad like the LMCC, but it is definitely not equal amount of say paediatrics and family medicine with internal medicine.  

I also found the questions more integrative and required you to know multiple steps of information to arrive at the answer. The MCC felt more like it emphasized population health and primary care with a lot fewer acute medicine questions. That said, I don't have my Step 2 mark back, nor have I written the LMCC. So who knows? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Organomegaly said:

Yes, they were easier. The Step 2 has a large emphasis on internal medicine (probably 40% of the test is IM) and understanding physiology and pathophysiology. There are also a lot of diagnosis and management questions. The scope is broad like the LMCC, but it is definitely not equal amount of say paediatrics and family medicine with internal medicine.  

I also found the questions more integrative and required you to know multiple steps of information to arrive at the answer. The MCC felt more like it emphasized population health and primary care with a lot fewer acute medicine questions. That said, I don't have my Step 2 mark back, nor have I written the LMCC. So who knows? 

Many people i know who write both MCCs and USMLEs always remark that the Canadian exams are generally much easier and don't require as much studying.  Similar sentiments with respect to order of questions and level of difficulty.  It somewhat fuels their angst(doing medical school outside of Canada), that CMGs don't even have to write as many exams etc, but yet they still get questioned on their capabilities despite having more than double the number of standardized exams hahah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnGrisham said:

Many people i know who write both MCCs and USMLEs always remark that the Canadian exams are generally much easier and don't require as much studying.  Similar sentiments with respect to order of questions and level of difficulty.  It somewhat fuels their angst(doing medical school outside of Canada), that CMGs don't even have to write as many exams etc, but yet they still get questioned on their capabilities despite having more than double the number of standardized exams hahah.

Yeah - but that’s also because standardized exams aren’t on the radar screen here for most people.  It’s not considered essential to succeed.  I’m not saying there isn’t some worth - just that if it were important I’m sure that people would prep more.  No question IMGs have a long road - but they know and take that risk at the outset.  Doing well on standardized exams means a chance to match in the US or Canada - many CMGs look for research opportunities to match, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, marrakech said:

Yeah - but that’s also because standardized exams aren’t on the radar screen here for most people.  It’s not considered essential to succeed.  I’m not saying there isn’t some worth - just that if it were important I’m sure that people would prep more.  No question IMGs have a long road - but they know and take that risk at the outset.  Doing well on standardized exams means a chance to match in the US or Canada - many CMGs look for research opportunities to match, etc.

Wa merely just providing some data points. In Canada, in contrast with the US, we have a culture of pass/fail and relaxing on the exams and focusing on clinical aspects etc...over the decade we've just moved further away from objective(albeit not necessarily reflective) metrics to more subjective "did you get a good LOR in 3rd year rotations" or things like that.   I'm not saying exams are better at all, was just an aside to the irony of CMGs constantly berating IMGs on their "inferiority" when objectively, those that make it back have had to do far more in the way of standardized exams and testing.  

In Canada, there isn't really and standardized metrics on what is "essential to succeed". It is very opaque and unclear. Some programs don't care at all about research and many don't care about what clubs or interest groups you're apart of either.   We are relatively lucky, in that positions and applicants have historically been very closely matched, and we are a relatively small pool of applicants.

Now in the new era of 1:1 spots to applicants, some people may start seeking more objective measures of comparison. A lot of times the matching process in Canada is quite random and happenstance. Seeing some people match to competitive specialties...and you're left wondering what exactly did they do to be competitive? Alot of it is just luck and if you were able to impress the right person on the right rotation. A swinging of the pendulum back to a time before pass/fail perhaps, but that is unlikely.  I wonder, in Quebec with grades, how do things work out there? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JohnGrisham said:

Wa merely just providing some data points. In Canada, in contrast with the US, we have a culture of pass/fail and relaxing on the exams and focusing on clinical aspects etc...over the decade we've just moved further away from objective(albeit not necessarily reflective) metrics to more subjective "did you get a good LOR in 3rd year rotations" or things like that.   I'm not saying exams are better at all, was just an aside to the irony of CMGs constantly berating IMGs on their "inferiority" when objectively, those that make it back have had to do far more in the way of standardized exams and testing.  

In Canada, there isn't really and standardized metrics on what is "essential to succeed". It is very opaque and unclear. Some programs don't care at all about research and many don't care about what clubs or interest groups you're apart of either.   We are relatively lucky, in that positions and applicants have historically been very closely matched, and we are a relatively small pool of applicants.

Now in the new era of 1:1 spots to applicants, some people may start seeking more objective measures of comparison. A lot of times the matching process in Canada is quite random and happenstance. Seeing some people match to competitive specialties...and you're left wondering what exactly did they do to be competitive? Alot of it is just luck and if you were able to impress the right person on the right rotation. A swinging of the pendulum back to a time before pass/fail perhaps, but that is unlikely.  I wonder, in Quebec with grades, how do things work out there? 

 

Quebec’s three francophone med schools are also moving to pass/fail. I think the announcement was made in Oct 2017. Not sure logically how they will transition, however. But Quebec graduates also have the lowest unmatched rate - 0.6% I think in 2017 CaRMS. It would practically be zero if the remaining took Quebec FM in the 2nd iteration given the number of unfilled spots in Quebec. Some hold out in hopes of matching to their speciality of choice and try again next year, but the reality is Quebec does have it under control as a province. But, I agree, there seems to be an overall lack of transparency and objectivity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnGrisham said:

Wa merely just providing some data points. In Canada, in contrast with the US, we have a culture of pass/fail and relaxing on the exams and focusing on clinical aspects etc...over the decade we've just moved further away from objective(albeit not necessarily reflective) metrics to more subjective "did you get a good LOR in 3rd year rotations" or things like that.   I'm not saying exams are better at all, was just an aside to the irony of CMGs constantly berating IMGs on their "inferiority" when objectively, those that make it back have had to do far more in the way of standardized exams and testing.  

In Canada, there isn't really and standardized metrics on what is "essential to succeed". It is very opaque and unclear. Some programs don't care at all about research and many don't care about what clubs or interest groups you're apart of either.   We are relatively lucky, in that positions and applicants have historically been very closely matched, and we are a relatively small pool of applicants.

Now in the new era of 1:1 spots to applicants, some people may start seeking more objective measures of comparison. A lot of times the matching process in Canada is quite random and happenstance. Seeing some people match to competitive specialties...and you're left wondering what exactly did they do to be competitive? Alot of it is just luck and if you were able to impress the right person on the right rotation. A swinging of the pendulum back to a time before pass/fail perhaps, but that is unlikely.  I wonder, in Quebec with grades, how do things work out there? 

 

Yeah but even in the states, where standardized tests are the norm, test scores only go so far for matching.  Beyond a certain level, clinical LORs and research become important and there's a lot of subjectivity too - sometimes school reputation plays more of a role, etc..  I think that's why IMGs have more difficulty matching into more competitive specialties in the US - standardized tests isn't enough.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, marrakech said:

Yeah but even in the states, where standardized tests are the norm, test scores only go so far for matching.  Beyond a certain level, clinical LORs and research become important and there's a lot of subjectivity too - sometimes school reputation plays more of a role, etc..  I think that's why IMGs have more difficulty matching into more competitive specialties in the US - standardized tests isn't enough.   

Actually, yes, scores ARE enough to get you a spot somewhere. They are a requisite to even be considered for a competitive specialty, barring rare connections or groundbreaking research. And unlike Canada where you need to do audition rotations, its not necessarily the same in the US. In some competitive specailties, scores and some fluff on your CV are enough to get you to the interview stage at more than enough schools to match somewhere. Then its on the interview performance to alter your pre-rank list.  Schools dont have the time or energy to go too deep into the nitty gritty of quality of publications and ECs, they simply have way too many applicants.  Scores are king in the US.  Then yes, for some fields if you want to go to a strong academic program you will need research etc. But if you don't care about that, and are fine with a "lesser" or a community program, then you have more options to go down on your list.


IMGs have more difficulty matching because of Visas and simple  pervasive preference for US Graduates over foreign graduates. Programs don't want to look inferior by taking too many foreign graduates and deter homegrown american talent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JohnGrisham said:

Actually, yes, scores ARE enough to get you a spot somewhere. They are a requisite to even be considered for a competitive specialty, barring rare connections or groundbreaking research. And unlike Canada where you need to do audition rotations, its not necessarily the same in the US. In some competitive specailties, scores and some fluff on your CV are enough to get you to the interview stage at more than enough schools to match somewhere. Then its on the interview performance to alter your pre-rank list.  Schools dont have the time or energy to go too deep into the nitty gritty of quality of publications and ECs, they simply have way too many applicants.  Scores are king in the US.  Then yes, for some fields if you want to go to a strong academic program you will need research etc. But if you don't care about that, and are fine with a "lesser" or a community program, then you have more options to go down on your list.


IMGs have more difficulty matching because of Visas and simple  pervasive preference for US Graduates over foreign graduates. Programs don't want to look inferior by taking too many foreign graduates and deter homegrown american talent. 

I think we’ll agree to disagree.  Scores will open the doors, but even people with lower scores can match.  Bit like great stats for med school - you’ll get in but not always at your top choice.  It’s not unknown for people to take a whole research year to improve their chances and if you’ve ever looked at the NRMP PD survey, there are about 20-30 factors they list - MLE is only one of them.  It’s important no doubt, but not the only factor by far.  Finally - there’s a huge number of US citizen IMGs and I agree that thinking could be part of it,  it’s by far not the only factor.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, marrakech said:

I think we’ll agree to disagree.  Scores will open the doors, but even people with lower scores can match.  Bit like great stats for med school - you’ll get in but not always at your top choice.  It’s not unknown for people to take a whole research year to improve their chances and if you’ve ever looked at the NRMP PD survey, there are about 20-30 factors they list - MLE is only one of them.  It’s important no doubt, but not the only factor by far.  Finally - there’s a huge number of US citizen IMGs and I agree that thinking could be part of it,  it’s by far not the only factor.  

Of course :) My point mearly was that, strong scores will open many doors and get you there for competitive specailties- but you have to be an interesting person too once at the interview.  

If you just want to match somewhere, in something, even low scores will suffice. If your application is essentially blank but you're a US graduate, you can always find a program that will take you if you are otherwise a normal person.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...