BRS Path or RR Path ?

[antiphobic]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi Docs !

Need your advise.I have 4th Ed BRS Path and new RR Path.

After reading the section abt "Heart" in both the books, just feel that BRS leaves out a lot of info.Although it is condensed, i just feel there is a lot of material that is not covered which are covered in RR.For example, in complications of MI, BRS does not talk abt early and late pericarditis at all ! ( which is very clearly discussed in RR)

Do I assume that the minimal condensed info in BRS is enough for step 1 and RR is a bit too much ?

The fact that BRS is 300 pages less than RR -does it mean it could possibly omit certain areas in any given topic ?!! Shd I just get hold of RR and keep aside BRS ?

I like the way RR explains concepts.But still BRS is a quick read.

Appreciate your time and valuable input.Thank you 🙂

 

[ChiDO]

RR + FA + Uworld

 

[ucsfstudents]

RR + FA + Uworld (If you have plenty of time)
BRS + FA + Uworld (If you're pressed for time)

RR+BRS+FA+UWorld - Since you have the books, you might as well use them. They're excellent resources. But you're right, BRS leave out a lot of the details and explanations you will need to answer questions. I would use RR and BRS to complement each other.

 

[Deferoxamine]

You didn't hear about this?

 

[NRAI2001]

I think BRS serves it purpose...basically a less intense path review book for those who arent interested in a book as intense as RR.

Personally I used BRS first with my pathology class notes to create a bit of a basic structure last term (tried to use RR while taking path and just found that I kept getting lost in the details; especially since we did all of path in 1 semester)...this term with pathophys I m using rapid review and its working pretty well since I feel like I have a good larger/medium understanding of path; RR is filling in the details and smaller concepts.

 

[Ableton]

You didn't hear about this?

👍 !!!

 

[NRAI2001]

Goljan has a lot of material in his book !!! I was wondering is it necessary to know all of that material to do well (230+); obviously the more the better. But is it one of those situations where they throw more info than actually you actually need to know for the STEP... like as in an over-prepared is better than underprepared mentality?

 

[Instatewaiter]

I thought the heme onc section was overkill in RR. So, to save time i read the BRS section on hemeonc instead of the 150 pages in RR. Saved a ton of time.

Otherwise i highly recommend RR over BRS.

 

[NRAI2001]

I thought the heme onc section was overkill in RR. So, to save time i read the BRS section on hemeonc instead of the 150 pages in RR. Saved a ton of time.

Otherwise i highly recommend RR over BRS.

Just read the heme-onco section and it was pretty dam good; a fair amount of detail though. I ve kinda been reading but not memorizing the smaller details (hopefully those will fill themselves in after reading the chapters a few times)..

 

[OveractiveBrain]

Fascinating concept. Use both.

What it really comes down to is do you like to look at meaningless phrases that you must draw the meaning out of them, using rapid recall in your review (Goljan) or do you like to have things spelled out for you in more sentence form (BRS)?

What is really comes down to is do you have the pirated audio from Goljan?

In a recent poll at my medical school, of the 75% of people who used either BRS or GOljan for pathology, 90% preferred Goljan (~70 people). BRS never even made the list for potential step 1 studying, too few people used in (<5)

 

[NRAI2001]

Fascinating concept. Use both.

What it really comes down to is do you like to look at meaningless phrases that you must draw the meaning out of them, using rapid recall in your review (Goljan) or do you like to have things spelled out for you in more sentence form (BRS)?

What is really comes down to is do you have the pirated audio from Goljan?

In a recent poll at my medical school, of the 75% of people who used either BRS or GOljan for pathology, 90% preferred Goljan (~70 people). BRS never even made the list for potential step 1 studying, too few people used in (<5)

Ya BRS wouldnt help if you wanted a great score but hey if you re happy with a lower score (210 or lower) and realize that you dont need a higher score to get to wherever you want (non-competitive residency, from a top tier med school..etc) then you could probably go with BRS path. It ll give you a good big to mediumish idea of path..

I used BRS mainly during my path course itself bc it gave me structure. My path notes were all over the place and I felt like I wasnt getting a big picture idea of what was going on... I found BRS excellent for this👍

 

[McGillGrad]

I thought the heme onc section was overkill in RR. So, to save time i read the BRS section on hemeonc instead of the 150 pages in RR. Saved a ton of time.

Otherwise i highly recommend RR over BRS.

Well, it is not just path but biochem, physio and pharm, too. That's what sets RR apart. It is almost a full REVIEW of medical school.

 

[NRAI2001]

Well, it is not just path but biochem, physio and pharm, too. That's what sets RR apart. It is almost a full REVIEW of medical school.

Ya I was thinking the same thing earlier also... If you can really memorize Goljan you probably dont need many other sources. Maybe a pharm book and physio book...

 

[Noeljan]

I used BRS along with goljan audio and did ok. I started to read RR but it was just random facts IMO. Goljan is wayyyy overkill for heme (even the audio). However, your step 1 studying goes beyond step 1. It really helps on the wards (at least in medicine it did).

 

[MDpride]

You didn't hear about this?

waht happened to link u posted?

 

[HarMegido]

I was able to get my hands on Goljan's notes as well as his audio lectures. I noticed that there are two sets of lecture notes: general pathology and systematic. Does the audio cover both? also does anyone know how old the lecture notes that are floating around are? also how similar are his lecture notes to his RR book?

 

[McGillGrad]

I was able to get my hands on Goljan's notes as well as his audio lectures. I noticed that there are two sets of lecture notes: general pathology and systematic. Does the audio cover both? also does anyone know how old the lecture notes that are floating around are? also how similar are his lecture notes to his RR book?

If this were 2003 then it would cover both. 6-7 years later, take it for what it is.

 

[alparkeruab]

What are you guys' views on Kaplan (4 book take home version) vs. RR? Which materials would be better if you needed to relearn the vast majority of material from 1st and 2nd year?

 

[McGillGrad]

What are you guys' views on Kaplan (4 book take home version) vs. RR? Which materials would be better if you needed to relearn the vast majority of material from 1st and 2nd year?

Don't waste your time with kaplan path.

 

[alparkeruab]

Don't waste your time with kaplan path.

Are all the other Kaplan subjects good besides path?

 

[McGillGrad]

Are all the other Kaplan subjects good besides path?

I was a big fan of Kaplan biochem, pharm and physio.

 

[theanswer03]

I was a big fan of Kaplan biochem, pharm and physio.

what about the organ systems?