Talk:USMLE Step 1

Katsufrakis & Chaudhry comments on Step 1 changes

Suggest removal of this controversy. It seems to be one those discussions worth of some Twitter buzz for a couple days but I question its encyclopedic notability. Basically, some people were offended, a couple blogs were written. Thoughts?MedGME (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It was covered heavily in reliable sources, and therefore warrants inclusion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Unintended consequences

I suggest we remove the "Unintended consequences" subsection. It seems to add little to the section of Step 1 score changes. It basically states ONE article was written that says students were not studying enough. Simply not worth of encyclopedic focus. Thoughts?MedGME (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Restructured the whole article. Trenchcoatjedi 23:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I simplified some words so that more people could understand the sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.111.89 (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we add discussion of potential changes to the format of the Step 1 or its possible elimination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanlevy (talk • contribs) 23:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I hadn't heard anything at all about the Step 1 possibly being eliminated.68.99.145.31 (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link discussing changes including possible elimination of step 1. http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/dec07/usmle.htm Also, what's with the large space after the first paragraph? I couldn't figure out how to get rid of that.--69.216.246.222 (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Comprehensive Review of Step 1. http://www.usmle.org/General_Information/review.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.135.151 (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Should we have a section on general criticisms of the test, with notable references to how laughably bullshit a 7h time frame is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.214.7 (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed the table with the average scores by year to have more accurate data. If someone wanted to take the time, they could incorporate a fair bit more data such as the national passing stats and whatnot from University of Virginia's publicly available step 1 files at http://www.med-ed.virginia.edu/handbook/academics/licensure.cfm If only every medical school had similar 71.195.126.142 (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Changes to Pass/Fail

It was brought up on Reddit that the changes made on 3 June 2020 from a now-deleted user were pretty biased in favor of pro-Pass/Fail even by those who also supported the change. I originally made some edits, but since I made them all in one, they were reverted. I've gone back and done a more piecemeal job of editing each section from the minor edits working up to the pretty major revisions. I think more work could be done in the Support for USMLE Changes. I tried to remain neutral, but if things need a little more fleshing out, I'm happy to continue editing! I think a section on the 80 experimental questions could also be added into controversy. Goofygubernaculum (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

References

"Controversy"

@Goofygubernaculum: Your edits are highly appreciated by the community. I have some constructive criticism for you. The controversy section of this article is ever growing. According to our beloved Wikipedia: A controversy is "a prolonged public dispute or debate, with people having different opinions." For instance, people forcing Katsufrakis and Chaudhry to issue an apology within days of them saying something plainly wrong is not a "controversy", regardless of how offended the (or someone in the) medical community was. That was simply criticism.

Students, physicians, NBME having discussions for years on the need for CS or making Step 1 P/F are controversies. We have to stop adding to this section every time there is a Twitter storm on a topic. The 80 experimental questions are not a controversy, there was criticism, bitter criticism indeed on medical blogs and the Twitterverse, but circumscribed in time.

Notice that Wikipedia discourages using controversy sections (Criticism#Approaches_to_presenting_criticism). Thus, I propose that instead of an "Exam Pricing and NBME Executive Salaries" (non-neutral) section that quotes a webpage that describes itself as "salty about medical education", we should have a Finances section that presents the information neutrally. MedGME (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)