BRS Path vs. Goljan Rapid Review?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
futuredo32

futuredo32

Senior Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2003
Messages
1,826
Reaction score
368
Is one better(more complete or easier to get through etc.) than the other for the COMLEX??
Members don't see this ad.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
futuredo32 said:
Is one better(more complete or easier to get through etc.) than the other for the COMLEX??
Click to expand...

Goljan Rapid Review is better.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kashue said:
So is BRS PATH better for the USMLE?
Click to expand...
BRS Path is much easier to get through. It covered everything I needed to know.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Members don't see this ad :)
I was looking at Rapid Review this weekend as I was ordeirng other amazon books for review and the comments there were mostly :thumbdown:

The comments said that the questions were mixed, some really easy and some really too hard. I dunno, I don't have that much time, money or attention span to deal with a so-so book. I am going with the BRS to keep it simple, because it is an awesome book.

I know our OSU friend likes his path prof, but having just spent a week listing to all his lectures I am myself a little burned out with Dr G.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Paws said:
I was looking at Rapid Review this weekend as I was ordeirng other amazon books for review and the comments there were mostly :thumbdown:

The comments said that the questions were mixed, some really easy and some really too hard. I dunno, I don't have that much time, money or attention span to deal with a so-so book. I am going with the brs to keep it simple. I know our OSU friend likes his prof but having just spent a week listing to all his lectures I am myself a little burned our with Dr G.
Click to expand...

Burned out or not, the Rapid Review is a duplicate of his beloved notes pirated on eBay.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Paws said:
I was looking at Rapid Review this weekend as I was ordeirng other amazon books for review and the comments there were mostly :thumbdown:
Click to expand...

I read the reviews as well, and it seems that most of the negativity is aimed at the CD that is included with the Rapid Review book. Apparently the questions on the CD suck, but overall reviews about the book seem to be okay. Several people have told me (not including our SDN counterparts) to go with Goljan, and listen to his voice until you can't stand it anymore - it's definitely worth it. But BRS Path is definitely much less dense in terms of review. To each his own. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
For comlex or usmle either one is good. For comlex I think a magic 8 ball will help you through the bad questions and mispellings better than any review books.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
my vote...
BRS path + goljan audio

The audio is great for concepts and the path is great to re-read over and over until you know the stuff solid.
I still use the stuff sometimes in my post step-1 days.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Joel Fleischman said:
my vote...
BRS path + goljan audio

The audio is great for concepts and the path is great to re-read over and over until you know the stuff solid.
I still use the stuff sometimes in my post step-1 days.
Click to expand...

:thumbup:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Members don't see this ad :)
I think both are great books and I feel that the best way to learn would be try to incorporate both books.

I spent the entire winter break memorizing BRS Path and I felt that BRS Path alone might not be enough. BRS Path doesn't have any pictures and there are better explanations/integrations in Rapid Review Goljian Path which might be better in terms of memory retention(ie AST > ALT in alcholic hepatitis is mentioned in Goljan but not in BRS). There are a few things that are in Goljian Path that aren't in BRS and vice versa. In fact, I thought a few sections of BRS Path were horribly written, especially Dermatology and some parts of the Environmental Pathology(particularly Gunshot wounds). I think I may just try to annotate Goljian Rapid Review with BRS Path.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kashue said:
I spent the entire winter break memorizing BRS Path.
Click to expand...

Now there's some dedication! Good job.

My goal is to commit as much of BRS Path to memory as humanely possible. I'll probably make an outline of each chapter as I re-read to help not get lost in the minutiae. I live by that book. It's probably one of the best board review books out on the market.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DOCTORSAIB said:
Now there's some dedication! Good job.

My goal is to commit as much of BRS Path to memory as humanely possible. I'll probably make an outline of each chapter as I re-read to help not get lost in the minutiae. I live by that book. It's probably one of the best board review books out on the market.
Click to expand...

Doctor Saib, you mentioned you recieved your copy of First Aid 2006. I haven't gotten mine yet. What were the ratings given to BRS PATH and RAPID REVIEW PATH by Goljian.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kashue said:
Doctor Saib, you mentioned you recieved your copy of First Aid 2006. I haven't gotten mine yet. What were the ratings given to BRS PATH and RAPID REVIEW PATH by Goljian.
Click to expand...

2006 FA give an "A" to BRS Path and only a "B+" to Rapid Review by Dr.Goljan.

The negatives about RR Path was that it could appear cluttered at times b/c of the marginal notes and that the CD-ROM questions were not in boards format.

Slam dunk for BRS Path...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OSUdoc08 said:
Burned out or not, the Rapid Review is a duplicate of his beloved notes pirated on eBay.
Click to expand...

Really? No it's not. Either (a) you have read Goljan's "pirated" notes or (b) you are just assuming. They are NOT the same and in no way resemble a duplication. Some of the material is the same but there is much more content and clinical pearls found in Goljan's notes, hands down. I'm tired of people saying that this isn't true and leading people astray. Check the notes out for yourself (over 500 pages worth) and then read Rapid Review. You're in for a shock.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Pox in a box said:
Really? No it's not. Either (a) you have read Goljan's "pirated" notes or (b) you are just assuming. They are NOT the same and in no way resemble a duplication. Some of the material is the same but there is much more content and clinical pearls found in Goljan's notes, hands down. I'm tired of people saying that this isn't true and leading people astray. Check the notes out for yourself (over 500 pages worth) and then read Rapid Review. You're in for a shock.
Click to expand...

He gives us the notes, so yes I have read them. They are not pirated, because it's included in my tuition.

No shock. Rapid Review is simply a condensed version, but the bold/emphasized terms are the same.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I maybe way offtarget, but it seems to me from the general consensus, that the major complaint against any book of th erapid review series is the cd, which doesnt seem to be upto the mark! The books, according to general consensus seem to be pretty decent. Also if anybody is looking for notes to go along with Goljan's audio lectures then Rapid review is the book to meet their needs! But this is not to say that BRS path is also an excellent book!Say what guys?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DOCTORSAIB said:
2006 FA give an "A" to BRS Path and only a "B+" to Rapid Review by Dr.Goljan.

The negatives about RR Path was that it could appear cluttered at times b/c of the marginal notes and that the CD-ROM questions were not in boards format.

Slam dunk for BRS Path...
Click to expand...
This doesn't surprise me. Many of my friends at various schools tended to use BRS Path and they did very well. I think incorporating BRS Path into your M-2 year is the best approach.

But it's all there, in terms of Pathology that you'll need. I tried to integrate a pathophysiological approach, which worked very well.

And if you consider the ancedotal postings on here (those SDN-ers that chose to reveal a score), BRS seems to triump on SDN. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bigfrank said:
This doesn't surprise me. Many of my friends at various schools tended to use BRS Path and they did very well. I think incorporating BRS Path into your M-2 year is the best approach.

But it's all there, in terms of Pathology that you'll need. I tried to integrate a pathophysiological approach, which worked very well.

And if you consider the ancedotal postings on here (those SDN-ers that chose to reveal a score), BRS seems to triump on SDN. :)
Click to expand...

Big Frank, did you ever browse through Goljan's notes or his rapid review. I think that he emphasizes more of a pathophys approach, and that is one reason I like his stuff. That said, I don't dare use his stuff without BRS path just because the later seems tried and true. So, I suppose I am stuck trying to integrate both into my studies. Also, what did you do to focus on pathophys? I don't feel like BRS does that. It seems to focus more on the core details of each disease.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
dark horse said:
Big Frank, did you ever browse through Goljan's notes or his rapid review. I think that he emphasizes more of a pathophys approach, and that is one reason I like his stuff. That said, I don't dare use his stuff without BRS path just because the later seems tried and true. So, I suppose I am stuck trying to integrate both into my studies. Also, what did you do to focus on pathophys? I don't feel like BRS does that. It seems to focus more on the core details of each disease.
Click to expand...

That's where our little friend "Pathophysiology for the Boards and Wards" comes in. I really, really like this book. It's concise, easy to read, and very clinical. When necessary, it has nice tables to summarize the key points. (Not to mention B & W for Step II is also a must-have, so get used to it).

I'd highly recommend this book. Use it when you're studying for class, especially toward the later part of your studies to help INTEGRATE the patho and the physio. Hope that helps. G'luck.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
dark horse said:
Big Frank, did you ever browse through Goljan's notes or his rapid review. I think that he emphasizes more of a pathophys approach, and that is one reason I like his stuff. That said, I don't dare use his stuff without BRS path just because the later seems tried and true. So, I suppose I am stuck trying to integrate both into my studies. Also, what did you do to focus on pathophys? I don't feel like BRS does that. It seems to focus more on the core details of each disease.
Click to expand...
I did look at both of Goljan's offerings, and I felt that it wasn't a good "fit" for me personally. I would rather just read Robbins, as both are very long. BRS Path worked well for me because it was more concise.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bigfrank said:
I did look at both of Goljan's offerings, and I felt that it wasn't a good "fit" for me personally. I would rather just read Robbins, as both are very long. BRS Path worked well for me because it was more concise.
Click to expand...

I find BRS to be a lot more simple than RR. It does not offer anything beyond what is taught in (our) lecture or in reading bold concepts in Robbins (maybe that is the beauty). I like RR more due to integration of different subjects (micro especially) and physical diagnosis, HY factoids, and applied knowledge. I do a quick read through of BRS and add anything not covered in RR to my RR (usually not a whole lot however).

I used to use B&W alot but found it was better oriented to step 2, although it still gets a quick read though somewhere between Robbins, RR, and BRS.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Are there any pictures/diagrams in RR? That's the one thing I don't like about BRS. It's all text. A few diagrams would be nice.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Pollicis said:
Are there any pictures/diagrams in RR? That's the one thing I don't like about BRS. It's all text. A few diagrams would be nice.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are pictures and diagrams that are high-yield for the boards.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
One negative about the book is that the pictures are small and they are black and white. On the other hand, they are usually clear and have arrows and specific descriptions that point out exactly what you are supposed to see. Overall, I feel that they are helpful. Many of the pictures are covered in Robbins (meaning there are pictures in there also), but he has different pictures of the same diseases. I don't know if it would be worth the money just for the pictures, but if you like his style then it is definitely a good buy.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

C
  • Question
USMLE Goljan discussion nowww
Replies
3
Views
1K
libertyyne
libertyyne
Dr_Frederick_Frankenstein
  • Question
UWORLD AND BRS
Replies
0
Views
486
Dr_Frederick_Frankenstein
Dr_Frederick_Frankenstein
Oh_Gee
  • Question
BRS Renal question
Replies
8
Views
2K
Brucelaa67
B
Preintel
  • Question
Thoughts on Goljan Rapid Review Pathology Book?
Replies
3
Views
2K
dropout87
D
PIacebo
  • Question
BOTH Goljian Audio vs Rapid Review Path
Replies
5
Views
2K
Jabbed
Jabbed
Top