- Joined
- Apr 20, 2010
- Messages
- 736
- Reaction score
- 16
people said Costanzo is better for Med school but when i do Kaplan physio Q's, they r asking stuff that was never mentioned in Costanzo and this worries me.
Idk if you're serious. BRS is Costanzo in outline form.have you tried BRS?
sorry I forgot to finish that with a "Idk if you're serious. BRS is Costanzo in outline form.
You know that BRS is an outline form of her bigger text, right?have you tried BRS?
Kaplan Qbank Physiology questions are not good IMHO. People told me that the Kaplan questions tend to conveniently be able to be answered in their Kaplan Lecture Notes which you conveniently have to buy by paying for their courses. Not a good Qbank resource IMHO vs. better alternatives.people said Costanzo is better for Med school but when i do Kaplan physio Q's, they r asking stuff that was never mentioned in Costanzo and this worries me.
No Qbanks are for learning AND assessment.Learn the physio that's in first aid. Remember that question banks are primarily for learning, not assessment. If you come across something not in first aid then annotate it in.
Never heard of it. Of course, everyone and their mom is trying to cash in on the USMLE Step 1 market these days, so I'm sure there is someone out there who will say it's useful.What about USMLEquickprep as a Qbank?
I did. Then it says, "Can not edit own profile, sorry." I've never created a profile on this site.It's free. You have to make an account, but I think it's like roughly 5k questions
http://www.usmlequickprep.com/login/index.php
There is a lot of information in Guyton that isn't "integrated" and won't give you the bottom line or application. It's basically like this mammoth foundation that gets refined when you get into pathologies.people said Costanzo is better for Med school but when i do Kaplan physio Q's, they r asking stuff that was never mentioned in Costanzo and this worries me.
Guyton is bad, in that respect, and I would say Boron and Boulpaep (which they use at Yale) is even worse for med students purposes, probably better for the PhD student (or MD/PhD).There is a lot of information in Guyton that isn't "integrated" and won't give you the bottom line or application. It's basically like this mammoth foundation that gets refined when you get into pathologies.
Costanzo is far more practical and useful, unless you're doing an MD/Phd.
Guyton is bad, in that respect, and I would say Boron and Boulpaep (which they use at Yale) is even worse for med students purposes, probably better for the PhD student (or MD/PhD).
Part of the problem with physiology texts these days is that they are straight physiology (naturally as they are written by PhDs). The boards has moved away from that and instead tests your knowledge of physiology through pathologic conditions (i.e. Pathophysiology) which tests your ability to not just memorize but apply physiologic principles.
There is a lot of information in Guyton that isn't "integrated" and won't give you the bottom line or application. It's basically like this mammoth foundation that gets refined when you get into pathologies.
Costanzo is far more practical and useful, unless you're doing an MD/Phd.
I always think it's funny that medical schools across the world use textbooks and review books written in the United States. Never understood why. But yes, Guyton has been a staple for the teaching of physiology in medical school for several decades now in many countries.Perfectly put. My school follows Guyton religiously. Personally, I found it very hard to read, non-practical for a medical student. I used Costanzo and never regretted it. Yes, it lacks some details and if school exams are based on Guyton's book, then it probably isn't enough to rock them, but likely more than enough to pass.
It is much less time consuming and much better for a medical student. And as it turned out, when pathology started, those of us who had used Costanzo had better understanding of physiology than the majority who had used Guyton's. Probably related to the size of the book. So, I'd strongly recommend Costanzo! (both the BRS and the actual textbook)
I always think it's funny that medical schools across the world use textbooks and review books written in the United States. Never understood why. But yes, Guyton has been a staple for the teaching of physiology in medical school for several decades now in many countries.
I don't know about Europe but in America, medicine is highly professionalized (i.e. college + MCAT decides if you go to med school, etc.)Not all the books used over here are American, but some are. Generally, faculty isn't interested in writing their own books so it is much simpler to translate them (and those books have generally gone through many editions so they are 'safe choices'). Picking American (and, rarely, German) textbooks can be expected since most professors speak English (and/or German).
Guyton is a classic textbook, used almost everywhere (at my school it has been the textbook of choice for over 30 years) but in my opinion, relatively useless for a medical student (similar to Robbins, which I bought, even though it wasn't the recommended reading for my path course, and ended up barely opening it).
We have been told by the professors countless times that the only way to learn basic sciences properly is to read and re-read and re-re-read textbooks, something I never really understood, nor tried doing. Such view resulted in plenty of departments re-introducing archaic oral exams leading to complete chaos, in my opinion, but it seems to be a common practice in plenty of European countries. American medical schools seem to be a doing a better job in organising basic science classes.
That book had so much ridiculous cell biology and signal transduction mess, it was really hard to separate the forest from the trees. Not that Guyton isn't any better. Costanzo's textbook is the best by far. On another note, I'm always curious how much the text and figures actually change, to justify putting out a new and more expensive edition every time.I actually read a lot of Boron. I preferred it to Guyton, but there's no question that Costanzo is clutch.
Learn the physio that's in first aid. Remember that question banks are primarily for learning, not assessment. If you come across something not in first aid then annotate it in.
No Qbanks are for learning AND assessment.
Except they aren't "primarily" for learning. It's both equally.Did you miss the word "primarily"
I expect more out of someone who spends their life on this forum
Now that book is DEFINITELY for PhDs. The smaller book version of that text - Essential Cell Biology is much better.I borrowed an old edition from the library, it was rumored that the physio prof here picked minutiae from that text. That comment about Cell Bio reminded me - We had to read Alberts' in college. Jesus that was fun.
I don't know about Europe but in America, medicine is highly professionalized (i.e. college + MCAT decides if you go to med school, etc.)
I think professors used to do that here, but this was mainly from PhD professors who are not clinicians and have absolutely no clinical experience. That being said medical schools are turning more towards PBL/TBL type curriculums, bc medicine is a "life-long learning" profession, so having the expectation that all your information comes from one textbook is antiquated. It's the way undergrad can be, but I guess a professional school is supposed to be different.
And yes, Robbins is a staple of Pathology courses across the United States as well. I knew a girl who used Rubin's as her text for the Pathology course, but that's bc the author of the book was the course director for the course.
I'll just add that they're mostly MD/PhDs, and medicine is taught in the local language (other than in the English programs as mentioned by NL).
Not all the books used over here are American, but some are. Generally, faculty isn't interested in writing their own books so it is much simpler to translate them (and those books have generally gone through many editions so they are 'safe choices'). Picking American (and, rarely, German) textbooks can be expected since most professors speak English (and/or German).
I'm not sure if I'd go with a German physio book. I plan on studying human physio and medicine.
I knew a girl who used Rubin's as her text for the Pathology course, but that's bc the author of the book was the course director for the course.
Except they aren't "primarily" for learning. It's both equally.
Yes, but esp. near the end, closer to your test date it becomes an assessment tool and has been used as such.I disagree. I think NBMEs and UWSAs are for assessment.
Saying UWorld is for assessment is like saying Costanzo is for assessment. UWorld is a teaching tool in question-answer format. I never recommended underclassmen treat it like an assessment because they end up "saving" UWorld until the last month. No, you want to go over UWorld as many times as possible because it's a learning tool.
For the shelf, I thought BRS Path was more than enough, since the shelf is only Path specific.Just to clear something up for people who haven't started MS-2: Goljan isn't lacking in detail. Knowing it will earn you a phenomenal shelf score.
For the shelf, I thought BRS Path was more than enough, since the shelf is only Path specific.
It's the ****ing answer key as far as I'm concerned. Used that plus some Pathoma and missed 4 questions total for a score of 880.Just to clear something up for people who haven't started MS-2: Goljan isn't lacking in detail. Knowing it will earn you a phenomenal shelf score.