Convert to FA 2013 in Jan?

[Rock13]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi there,

I would appreciate a few opinions on this situation. I am an international medical student, and intend to sit Step 1 somewhere around mid-Feb 2013. I've been using FA as an occasional reference text this year for whenever I've had the time to study. However my dedicated study period begins Nov 5, where I imagine I will be using it more intensively - at this stage I've made no annotations.

FA 2013 comes out in January, by the time I get it, I imagine it would be mid-Jan, which puts me 30 days away from the test date. In your opinion(s) is it worth converting all notes and studying from the newest version for this period of time?

Cheers!

 

[Ronin786]

Hi there,

I would appreciate a few opinions on this situation. I am an international medical student, and intend to sit Step 1 somewhere around mid-Feb 2013. I've been using FA as an occasional reference text this year for whenever I've had the time to study. However my dedicated study period begins Nov 5, where I imagine I will be using it more intensively - at this stage I've made no annotations.

FA 2013 comes out in January, by the time I get it, I imagine it would be mid-Jan, which puts me 30 days away from the test date. In your opinion(s) is it worth converting all notes and studying from the newest version for this period of time?

Cheers!

Nope. Once you've gone over FA enough times, you're going to memorize how the page itself looks. IMO this helps with overall recall since you're basically reading a book in your mind. Switching to another format that close to your test probably won't be a good idea, especially since the difference between the two editions likely won't amount to something huge.

Plus you never know how messed up the new FA version will be, so it would suck to have to lose time verifying some of their stupid mistakes.

 

[ijn]

It doesn't matter what version of First Aid that you use to study. Pick one and go with it. Your score isn't going to be higher or lower because you stuck with 2012 or gambled on 2013.

 

[Rock13]

Solid. Thanks guys.

 

[smartparts]

It doesn't matter what version of First Aid that you use to study. Pick one and go with it. Your score isn't going to be higher or lower because you stuck with 2012 or gambled on 2013.

What about going from 2011 to 2013? There's the color difference, and having the histo/path images next to the subject is really convenient. Would it be better to get 2012 and fix all the errata or get 2013 and hope it doesn't have too many mistakes?

 

[Phloston]

I would always advocate buying the newest version possible.

However, the OP is taking the exam in February. In that case, he likely has lots of his 2012 annotated already, so I'd just stick with the 2012.

In summary:

non-annotated new > non-annotated old

Q-bank annotated old >> non-annotated new

 

[thehundredthone]

I would always advocate buying the newest version possible.
In summary:

non-annotated new > non-annotated old

When it comes to first aid, old with errata > new without errata

It'll be annoying enough correcting all the errors you already know.

 

[SF0]

i would stick to First Aid 2012
the errata is already out so, u know the mistakes and u can correct them
plus its better to familiarize urself with FA earlier on then later.
i was dealing with the same ordeal but decided on sticking with 2012

 

[viper930]

Surprising to see many people advocating sticking with the old version. Maybe it's reasonable here since OP is taking it so early in the year. Anyone taking it April or later though would be a fool to not have the latest version. The publishers of these review books make changes for a reason. They constantly get new info from examinees about what does/doesn't come up on exams and tailor the emphasis accordingly. Additionally, transferring annotations from one year's FA to the next is an excellent way to get another thorough pass of the material in.

 

[Myxedema]

The publishers of these review books make changes for a reason. They constantly get new info from examinees about what does/doesn't come up on exams and tailor the emphasis accordingly. .

Hi viper, I agree with what you say about transferring annotations to a new FA, but I like to vent a little about FA. I'm quite disappointed in the amount of errors in that are carried over the years. When I see the exact same error in the table of amyloidosis in both FA11 and FA12, I can't help but feel a little cheated.

 

[thehundredthone]

Hi viper, I agree with what you say about transferring annotations to a new FA, but I like to vent a little about FA. I'm quite disappointed in the amount of errors in that are carried over the years. When I see the exact same error in the table of amyloidosis in both FA11 and FA12, I can't help but feel a little cheated.

Embrace capitalism, they said. It'll only lead to prosperity, they said.

I agree, I find it inexplicable that they do this. Not to mention, the errata often asks you to undo changes from previous errata. Like I said, inexplicable.

 

[D elegans]

The amount of errata is FA is insulting, particularly because it seems like new editions tend to get worse in this regard.

 

[viper930]

Yes, the errata is disturbing. It is indeed difficult to explain why mistakes that get corrected from one year to the next become incorrect again the year after that (especially when they're in the same table that could presumably just be copy pasted into the new edition). However, this still doesn't justify using an older version over the superior content coverage of a newer version.

 

[smartparts]

Does anyone know when the first round of errors are published? I think someone suggested April, is that accurate? On the bottom of the errata documents it says errors added since May 2012. Could that be the first round?

 

[GalenAgas]

Superior content coverage?

FA stays 95% - 98% the same from year to year. People who annotate with UW likely cover the missing 2-5%