Fact Check: Are UWorld questions harder than NCLEX?

Fact Check: Are UWorld questions harder than NCLEX?

Published May 7, 2025
by TruthOrFake
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Are UWorld Questions Harder than NCLEX? ## Introduction The claim that "UWorld questions are harder than NCLEX" has been a topic of discussion amon...

Are UWorld Questions Harder than NCLEX?

Introduction

The claim that "UWorld questions are harder than NCLEX" has been a topic of discussion among nursing students and educators. UWorld is a widely used test preparation resource for the NCLEX (National Council Licensure Examination), which is required for nursing licensure in the United States. The assertion suggests that UWorld's questions may be more challenging than those found on the actual NCLEX exam, potentially impacting students' preparation strategies and confidence levels.

What We Know

  1. UWorld's Design and Purpose: UWorld is designed as a comprehensive study tool for nursing students, providing practice questions that aim to enhance understanding and critical thinking skills. The platform emphasizes detailed rationales for each answer choice, which are intended to aid in learning 14.

  2. User Feedback: A survey conducted by UWorld indicated that approximately 90% of users found UWorld's questions to be of equal or greater difficulty compared to the NCLEX 4. This feedback is based on the experiences of students who have recently taken both assessments.

  3. Comparative Claims: Various sources, including blog posts and forums, suggest that UWorld questions are generally perceived as more difficult. For instance, one user noted a significant difference in perceived difficulty, rating UWorld questions as a "10" compared to NCLEX questions rated as a "5-6" 8. Other reviews echo this sentiment, stating that UWorld's focus on in-depth content and critical thinking makes its questions more challenging 56.

  4. Expert Opinions: Some educational blogs assert that UWorld's questions are designed to prepare students for the rigors of nursing practice, which may explain their higher perceived difficulty 23. However, these claims often lack rigorous empirical backing.

Analysis

The claim that UWorld questions are harder than NCLEX raises several points for critical evaluation:

  • Source Reliability: UWorld's own blog posts and surveys 14 provide insights directly from the company, which may introduce bias. The results could be influenced by the self-selecting nature of survey participants, who are likely to be users already invested in the platform.

  • User Experience Variability: Individual experiences with both UWorld and NCLEX can vary widely. Factors such as study habits, prior knowledge, and test-taking skills can all influence perceptions of question difficulty. Anecdotal evidence from forums 69 may not represent a comprehensive view and can be skewed by those who had particularly challenging or easy experiences.

  • Methodology of Comparisons: The comparisons made between UWorld and NCLEX questions often lack a standardized methodology. For example, while UWorld claims to have surveyed thousands of users, the specifics of how these surveys were conducted (e.g., sample size, demographics) are not detailed, raising questions about the validity of the findings.

  • Potential Conflicts of Interest: Many sources promoting the idea that UWorld is harder may have a vested interest in UWorld's success, such as being affiliated with the company or benefiting from its use in educational contexts. This could lead to biased reporting.

  • Lack of Empirical Evidence: While user feedback is valuable, more rigorous studies comparing the actual difficulty of UWorld and NCLEX questions would provide a clearer picture. Controlled studies that analyze question formats, content areas, and psychometric properties would enhance understanding.

Conclusion

Verdict: Partially True

The assertion that UWorld questions are harder than NCLEX is partially true, as there is substantial anecdotal evidence and user feedback suggesting a higher perceived difficulty. Approximately 90% of users reported that UWorld questions are of equal or greater difficulty compared to NCLEX, and many users have expressed that UWorld's focus on critical thinking contributes to this perception. However, the evidence is largely based on subjective experiences and lacks rigorous empirical validation.

It is important to note that individual experiences with both UWorld and NCLEX can vary significantly, influenced by factors such as study habits and prior knowledge. Additionally, the methodologies used in surveys and comparisons are not always transparent, which raises questions about the reliability of the findings.

Readers should approach this claim with a critical mindset, recognizing the limitations of the available evidence and the potential for bias in user feedback. As always, it is advisable to evaluate information independently and consider multiple perspectives before drawing conclusions.

Sources

  1. UWorld Nursing. Is UWorld Review Course Harder than the NCLEX®? Retrieved from UWorld Nursing
  2. Medcognito. Is Uworld Harder or Easier than Nclex? Retrieved from Medcognito
  3. Kevin's Review. Is UWorld Harder Than NCLEX? Should You Use It For NCLEX? Retrieved from Kevin's Review
  4. UWorld Nursing. Is the UWorld QBank Harder Than the NCLEX®? Retrieved from UWorld Nursing
  5. Kevin's Review. Is UWorld Harder Than NCLEX? Should You Use It For NCLEX? Retrieved from Kevin's Review
  6. UWorld Forums. Is UWORLD harder than NCLEX - NCLEX-RN. Retrieved from UWorld Forums
  7. Test Prep Pal. NURSING.com Vs. UWorld NCLEX: Which is better? Retrieved from Test Prep Pal
  8. UWorld Forums. Passed 75 Qs, Read For Motivation - NCLEX-RN. Retrieved from UWorld Forums
  9. UWorld Forums. Is UWORLD harder than NCLEX - NCLEX-RN. Retrieved from UWorld Forums
  10. The NCLEX Tutor. Uworld NCLEX Review: Pros, Cons, My Scores and Tips. Retrieved from The NCLEX Tutor

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Are UWorld questions harder than Step 1?
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Are UWorld questions harder than Step 1?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Are UWorld questions harder than Step 1?

May 7, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Are UWorld questions harder than MCAT?
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Are UWorld questions harder than MCAT?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Are UWorld questions harder than MCAT?

May 7, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Are rdls harder than deadlifts?
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Are rdls harder than deadlifts?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Are rdls harder than deadlifts?

May 9, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Are GCSEs harder than SATs?
Partially True

Fact Check: Are GCSEs harder than SATs?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Are GCSEs harder than SATs?

May 4, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: KEAM is harder exam than CUSAT CAT
Partially True

Fact Check: KEAM is harder exam than CUSAT CAT

Detailed fact-check analysis of: KEAM is harder exam than CUSAT CAT

Mar 15, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified

Fact Check: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Apr 6, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Are UWorld questions harder than NCLEX? | TruthOrFake Blog