Why is this field so obscessed with Step scores. Some people are brilliant but don't test well. I'd take the 230 plus many first author manuscripts in the field with glowing recs over the 260 with no research and a jackass personality.
I don't think it's so much an obsession with Step scores as it is an individual with a relatively weak research portfolio just matched at an academic program. Some applicants have spent nearly a decade preparing for a research career, and to see this individual match at this program while others fail to is understandably frustrating. All I'm saying is.. I can understand why some may be upset. Oh well.. life goes on.
For most programs, the generation of the rank list results from weighing a variety of factors concerning the individual applicants. This can be frustrating because so many of us want to know "what do I have to do to match well?" and the fact is there is no guaranteed outcome in the process.
The match is a bit like the NFL draft....what does the program 'need' in the incoming class to make sure that the overall resident group is talented, diverse, and able to accomplish the aims of the program. Many programs put a fair amount of the stock in the 'intangible' of leadership or influence. Thus, a relatively weak research portfolio might be outweighed by a significant achievement in another domain. It is relatively frequently the case that a 'bad day' Part 1 score is outweighed by a significantly better Part II score if many of the other factors are also positive.
Another things programs look for is 'trajectory'. If at every level, and every opportunity, a person who had less of a head start (no prep schools, no family money, no prestigious college) keeps excelling at the highest level of achievement, they will sometimes be accelerated over an applicant who has done well but everything was laid out for them in life.
For those applying in the future, remember it is the overarching view of 'you' as a person that will dictate how you match. Are you smart, can you do the work? Are you creative, have you created something such as a new line of research, a new organization, or a new idea? Can you write? Do you have stamina...neurosurgery training is long and grueling....are you able to cut it? Are you a team player? Are you willing to carry your share of the load and then a bit more, without complaining or pointing out every unfairness that you are subjected to? Do you have a vision for yourself and your future career? Can you communicate that vision in an interview or in written form? Lastly, how resilient are you? If you don't get into your top program...does that define you? Or are you defined by the great things you achieve wherever you match?
The last post sounds like it came from someone with experience in the NFL draft LOL
Just to be clear for future applicants:
In the case of the "relatively weak research portfolio" applicant matching at an academic program, the Step 2 scores were just as bad as the Step 1 scores, coupled with a low class rank at a new medical school and average clerkship grades.
Sometimes being famous and knowing people matters more than anything else.
