What is the difference btw. the Rapid review pathology and the Star review pathology by Glojan? WHich one is better?

Thanks

RR is better, simply because it is more up-to-date than the Stars book. However, for pure basic knowledge, either will suffice. Some of the material in RR is definitely more current, and I think the book is an easier read.

RR is better, simply because it is more up-to-date than the Stars book. However, for pure basic knowledge, either will suffice. Some of the material in RR is definitely more current, and I think the book is an easier read.

Are you saying you read Goljan's RR during your 2nd year pathology course?

Are you saying you read Goljan's RR during your 2nd year pathology course?

I am. The notes for our class IS his 2006 edition of the Rapid Review.

I am. The notes for our class IS his 2006 edition of the Rapid Review.

I'm asking Idiopathic.

Yes, our class used the notes from his initial RR book, before it was published. Addenda and errata notwithstanding, this material was fine, and I had no need to review pathology before the exam.

Yes, our class used the notes from his initial RR book, before it was published. Addenda and errata notwithstanding, this material was fine, and I had no need to review pathology before the exam.

Okay, I was just checking because I knew you were a 4th year and it didn't come out until last year. :laugh: Hey, have you been using Goljan's stuff for Step 2 prep?

Okay, I was just checking because I knew you were a 4th year and it didn't come out until last year. :laugh: Hey, have you been using Goljan's stuff for Step 2 prep?

I guess indirectly, since I remember so much of what he said "would be on step 2". We have some lectures taped that are online but it seems like a rehashing of pathology, so I havent bothered with it.