BRS Path vs Rapid Review Path?

[kdburton]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I realize there are other threads about this, but it seemed like the majority of responses were based on older editions of the books and I'm not sure if things have chaged in the last couple years.... Which book is better for Step 1 review?

Right now I've got a copy of Rapid Review Path because everyone says that Goljan is the man, but I've heard mixed reviews about which book is better (BRS vs Rapid Review). I've heard some of of the Goljan audio lectures and really liked them, so I'm wondering if that has any indication of which one I should use. I guess I've heard people either say that if you like the audio you'll like the book, or if you like the audio then why not supplement it with BRS since its different perspective maybe? Any input from those of you who've used these books would be helpful

 

[Lamborghini1315]

I realize there are other threads about this, but it seemed like the majority of responses were based on older editions of the books and I'm not sure if things have chaged in the last couple years.... Which book is better for Step 1 review?

Right now I've got a copy of Rapid Review Path because everyone says that Goljan is the man, but I've heard mixed reviews about which book is better (BRS vs Rapid Review). I've heard some of of the Goljan audio lectures and really liked them, so I'm wondering if that has any indication of which one I should use. I guess I've heard people either say that if you like the audio you'll like the book, or if you like the audio then why not supplement it with BRS since its different perspective maybe? Any input from those of you who've used these books would be helpful

That's an overkill unless you want to study for pathology boards..stick with RR i love how goljan integrates all the high yield facts in his book. Some people regret not studying goljan's book thoroughly..you might do really well by knowing RR cold than using 2 books for path. Seriously there's a lot to cover during board prep and take my word on this one RR is the way to go! By the way you don't want different perspectives that will only confuse you.

 

[kdburton]

That's an overkill unless you want to study for pathology boards..stick with RR i love how goljan integrates all the high yield facts in his book. Some people regret not studying goljan's book thoroughly..you might do really well by knowing RR cold than using 2 books for path. Seriously there's a lot to cover during board prep and take my word on this one RR is the way to go! By the way you don't want different perspectives that will only confuse you.

Thanks for the reply. Anyone else want to comment on which book they liked better and why?

 

[mudphudwannabe]

I used BRS Path. I didn't look at RR Path except for a brief glancing over when I was deciding on books. I liked the condensed style of BRS - it was really quick to go over and had just the right amount of detail for me. As I recall, RR was more wordy. From what I've gathered here, it's more of a personal preference than one being "better" than the other. Take a look at BRS in a bookstore if you can (or look on Amazon here: BRS Path - you can look at an excerpt), and decide for yourself. I would try to decide on only one though, though, because they are going to cover the same basic topics.

 

[albe]

I'm currently a second year. I've got both RR and BRS, and here are my perceptions of the differences so far.

RR seems like a great text for review for Step 1 but not a great review for my school exams. I say this is because the way it is organized isn't really how my professors are teaching the material. While reviewing RR along with my course, I felt like it did not give me the necessary details needed to do really well on my exam. For example, it talks about hypoxia in the very beginning, which was not addressed the first block. Its outline method is also somewhat different from what my professors are stressing. However, I can see RR being EXCELLENT for integration for Step 1 review just because Goljan ties so many things together. It seems like I need to know a little more info that what I know now to be able to appreciate the information contained in each chapter of RR. That's why I think this review book would be great towards the end of the year.

BRS Pathology, on the other hand, follows much closer to the format that is being taught by my professors. Because of this, I used it more for my school exam. It's great because it takes the huge volume of information in Pathology and puts it into a format that can be quickly reviewed. The only downside is that I don't see it doing the job of integrating across other subjects like Biochem the way Goljan does. If you are someone who is able to see the connections between subjects easily, you probably wouldn't need to get RR. It seems like how I use BRS Pathology for Pathology class is going to be analogous to how I used BRS Physiology for Physiology class (I can't say the same for the other BRS's, like BRS Gross or BRS Biochem 4th edition).

Keep in mind I'm just starting out the year, but this is what I perceive so far.

 

[Terpskins99]

I think people need to spend less time deciding which books to use and more time actually reading the books.

BRS and RR are both good. People have done extremely well with either one. So stop procrastinating and just start studying. Sheesh. 🙄

 

[commander]

I think people need to spend less time deciding which books to use and more time actually reading the books.

BRS and RR are both good. People have done extremely well with either one. So stop procrastinating and just start studying. Sheesh. 🙄

You are talking about the biggest discision in your life!!!!
If you like two girls, I say don’t waste your time thinking about them. Just pick one. They are both good. People have produced 260+ progenies with arranged marriages in the past!!

 

[diosa428]

I have both - I just got the new BRS Path (fourth edition) and I've had RR for a while. Honestly, I like BRS better. They're both in outline format, but I find BRS easier to read, in that things seem to flow better (so it's less like reading outline format). I guess I tend to get easily confused when things jump around, and I HATE outline format, so any book that has the basic facts but manages to not be disconnected gets my vote. Although looking at the two, I would agree that Goljian does a better job of integrating subjects other than path. I just dont think I'd ever be able to get through his book b/c it's harder for me to read. So you might want to head to the bookstore and take a look at both of them before deciding.

 

[psychobob]

I have both - I just got the new BRS Path (fourth edition) and I've had RR for a while. Honestly, I like BRS better. They're both in outline format, but I find BRS easier to read, in that things seem to flow better (so it's less like reading outline format). I guess I tend to get easily confused when things jump around, and I HATE outline format, so any book that has the basic facts but manages to not be disconnected gets my vote. Although looking at the two, I would agree that Goljian does a better job of integrating subjects other than path. I just dont think I'd ever be able to get through his book b/c it's harder for me to read. So you might want to head to the bookstore and take a look at both of them before deciding.

Other than the color text and added color photographs, is there anything new in the 4th edition? I just compared the 'hemodynamic dysfunction' sample pdf to my 3rd edition, and there's no changes.

 

[diosa428]

Other than the color text and added color photographs, is there anything new in the 4th edition? I just compared the 'hemodynamic dysfunction' sample pdf to my 3rd edition, and there's no changes.

I don't have the 3rd edition, so I can't help you there. Sorry.

 

[TexasPhysician]

If you have the time, I think RR is better because there is more explanations. It integrates facts better. If you are pushed for time, go with BRS.

Step 1 has a lot of regurgitation q's that can be answered from BRS, but the harder "why" questions are better answered in RR.

 

[UditNarayan]

i think it depends on how you learn. many people ive spoken to have mentioned that retaining info was easier when they used BRS path. I used RR Path and read it twice during my step 1 studying time and i certainly dont regret a minute of that. Goljan provides more context for understanding the material and if you learn through understanding things, it could be a good fit. also, Goljan has tons of great iillustrations, captions, margin notes, all of which are high yield. i tried reading both at one time (lol) and that just didnt work. I ended up sticking with goljan RR and loved it. good luck.

 

[DrZeke]

Agreed, I've seen both books and it's absolutely a question of how you learn. I like to understand concepts very well and get annoyed when I'm just memorizing. I guess that's why I like Goljan's style. But, I'm also one of those weirdos that actually enjoys path.

 

[davosPlatz]

Do yourself a favor and re-realize (since you no doubt have already) that Step 1 is heavy on Path.

Therefore, you should:
1) Do all the questions in BRS Path and quick read it.
2) Know RR cold.

That's my take.

 

[UCLAstudent]

Step 1 IS heavy on path, but RR is absolutely not necessary if you've learned the material well during MS1/MS2. I used BRS and thought it was the perfect amount of information for the test. It can be read much more quickly than RR, as well.

 

[GMDMD]

RR was hard to read at first- it takes a while to get used to the bulleted format.

Once you get used to it though, the book is GOLD. Awesome reference text throughout 2nd year. I read it once through during my Step1 studying and loved it. Found myself wishing I had had more time to read it a 2nd time.

BRS Path is a good text but I used it sparingly. Hits the high yield stuff but not enough pathophysiology / understanding for my tastes.

 

[TerpDO]

Just my personal opinion but I can't see how one goes about reading RR without the audio. With the audio files it takes about 2-3 hours for one chapter (the few that I've done so far). And then, and this is the hard part, you have to re-read the chapter again after listening to the audio to get the info down much better. The only other way RR may be useful is if you already finished pathology at your school and then use it as a review guide. But to start using it with no audio and never being exposed to the material is too difficult IMO. (Also Goljan refers to lots of pictures that are not in RR, I plan to supplement with a patho website for review of the pictures as well)

BTW I don't own BRS patho so I can't compare the two. But I recommend that if you plan to stick with RR, get the audio files from a classmate.

 

[BlondeCookie]

Both of these books are so good and close in people picking one over another, I don't think you should buy one of these books based on what internet reviews. Really, both are very good. And I think it comes down to personal preference. If you can, see if you can go to a bookstore or library and compare the two books side by side to see which one you like better as far as organization, heft, etc.

I have the BRS book and I got that book before I even looked at the RR book. Looking back on it now, I would've gotten the RR book because it has more pics and explanations, while the BRS book is more condensed. My reasoning is simple. I seldom read Robbins (the Big book), so RR might have been better for me. On the other hand, had I done what I should've done and read Robbins more then I think the BRS book, being more condensed, would've been better. In the end, I'm not disappointed in the BRS book at all. I like it.

 

[GMDMD]

If you can, see if you can go to a bookstore or library and compare the two books side by side to see which one you like better as far as organization, heft, etc.

Problem with this is that my first impression was very wrong. At first I greatly preferred BRS as I went through my classes. During Step 1 review however I found RR to be so much more helpful in helping me understand pathophysiology.

What I would do is pick up RR and get a used or older edition BRS Path for dirt cheap.

 

[JeffLebowski]

You are talking about the biggest discision in your life!!!!
If you like two girls, I say don't waste your time thinking about them. Just pick one. They are both good. People have produced 260+ progenies with arranged marriages in the past!!

Is the goal of marriage to produce 260+ progeny?

But seriously to address the OP - EITHER will work just fine. Just go nuts on it, learn it well in your courses, and be thorough. Pick one based on what format you like better and never look back.

 

[commander]

Is the goal of marriage to produce 260+ progeny?

But seriously to address the OP - EITHER will work just fine. Just go nuts on it, learn it well in your courses, and be thorough. Pick one based on what format you like better and never look back.

Now confused!! Why did that biology teacher told us that if you really want to be fit and successful, you must pass on your genes. Which explains why I was aiming for 260 progenies. How many mates will it take to produce 260? High yield USMLE question.

Sorry for going of topic, I like to joke about things that stress me out that the USMLE (Humor as defense mechanism)

And to answer the question. I really like the Robbins review question book.

 

[DrMetal]

Bump.

I echo some of the thoughts above regarding Goljans RR. It seems to be way too much stuff, not high-yield enough, agree?

If you do BRS Path + FA (whatever path you can find in First Aid, including the section on it), should this be enough???

 

[2012mdc]

Bump.

I echo some of the thoughts above regarding Goljans RR. It seems to be way too much stuff, not high-yield enough, agree?

If you do BRS Path + FA (whatever path you can find in First Aid, including the section on it), should this be enough???

Disagree - Goljan was money for me. BRS Path was ok (used it for the shelf - didn't want to read Goljan too much) but I would strongly recommend RR over BRS Path personally. RR has better tables and integrates more. But it really depends on what score you are shooting for - RR probably isn't necessary for around ~230 but I think it's pretty useful for 260+

 

[turkeyjerky]

Bump.

I echo some of the thoughts above regarding Goljans RR. It seems to be way too much stuff, not high-yield enough, agree?

If you do BRS Path + FA (whatever path you can find in First Aid, including the section on it), should this be enough???

No.

There really is no competition between the two. RR path is far and above the better book. Look on the scores and experiences thread, you'll see that the people who score >250 almost exclusively use RR in lieu of BRS. (One critical aspect is that RR goes into depth on mechanisms of disease, which is barely touched upon in BRS. This is a major focus of step 1 and other nbme produced exams)

Also, get off the "super high yield" or bust attitude. Most of the crap is first aid is considered "high-yield" (although I'd prolly disagree with that characterization), but can be purged the day after the exam. A lot of the 'extra' material in RR path is gold and will give you a big leg up in third year.

 

[badasshairday]

Point blank. Goljan is money. I spent most of 2nd year reading, rereading, that book. I NEVER EVER went to my schools pathology lectures. I did decent on the exams, but I was forcusing on the bigger goal at the end... Step 1.

I would read each chapter 3-5 times for each block of path, listen to his lectures 2-3x as well. Then during spring break of second year, I reread the first half of the book. Right before finals I finished rereading the second half of the book. Then during boards study period I read the first half again and went through the blue margins of the 2nd half.

NEVER opened Robbins, BRS Path, my schools path notes. Only used RR, Goljan audio, Webpath questions, and Robbins qbook during the year.

Then during board study period I took 5 weeks and mashed through FA 3 times, the RR readings I described above, and UWORLD 1x in its entirety. The effort payed off. Scored 250.

 

[DanceGirl286]

Friends of mine who have taken the test studied a lot of Goljan RR and recommended it. I'd just use common sense to sort out the less important stuff, and if you aren't sure how important something is I'd probably study it. Personally, I think it's better to over-study rather than under-study in preparing for Step 1.