FA 2009 vs 2006 (yes, 2006) (yes, this kind of thread again)

[Knicks]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I have the 2006 book and short on cash.

Some people rely HEAVILY on FA books, but I'm not planning to.

So would I be fine with the 2006 book?

Yes yes, "you've spent all this money upto this point, so what's a measley $50?" (or however much it costs). But you know what? At this point, for me it's not so "measely" anymore.


So, yeah, can someone post some constructive input on the topic at hand?


Thanks in advance.

 

[Depakote]

I know the 2009 version had upwards of 60 pages of updates over the 2008 version. That convinced me to get the newest edition.

It really depends on how much you're planning to use the book to guide your study. The absolute core material is probably the same. The differences are probably minutia.

What other texts and resources will you be using?

 

[Instatewaiter]

I highly recommend against getting the newest edition. For some unknown reason, FA has an absolute TON of errors in each new edition. The books are essentially the same thing yet they manage to F things up each year.

The year before's edition already has the official erata published. I found that to be piece of mind. If found few if any differences between the 2007 and 2008 edition.
Your school probably will get the 2009 edition. Just scan through it and photo copy the pages that are markedly different

 

[wAyRadikull]

Hey Depakote, did you notice anything in 2008 that is missing in 2009? Probly a stupid question, but i have the 2008 and just recently ordered the 2009, thought i should combine them if FA 2008. So am i better of just ditching 2008? I really don't want to take any chances.

Hey Knicks, my bad on hijacking your thread for a quick question. I didnt want to start a new thread.. i hope we're good. 👍

Ps. I think you should just buy the new one (get the ebook version). Its a high-yield tool and you dont want to take any chances with the step 1.. its the most important test of your life.

 

[Depakote]

Hey Depakote, did you notice anything in 2008 that is missing in 2009? Probly a stupid question, but i have the 2008 and just recently ordered the 2009, thought i should combine them if FA 2008. So am i better of just ditching 2008? I really don't want to take any chances.

Hey Knicks, my bad on hijacking your thread for a quick question. I didnt want to start a new thread.. i hope we're good. 👍

Ps. I think you should just buy the new one (get the ebook version). Its a high-yield tool and you dont want to take any chances with the step 1.. its the most important test of your life.

I didn't get into my intensive prep until I got my 2009 copy (which I've been updating with the ERRTA's as they come out). Can't really tell you too much about the differences between the two, just due to the fact that I only skimmed 2008 as it applied to my coursework during the first half of this year.

 

[spospo]

i have a 2006 version that i inherited from a friend. i also have the 2009. now, i haven't gone side by side to compare, but there are definitely quiet a few more pages in the 2009. in general i have found some more drawings/illustrations and a few more charts. most of them are things i find very helpful and that i would have written up myself if the 2009 hadn't had them. i personally feel that the 2009 is superior to the 2006

 

[deleted98681]

I relied heavily on FA 2006 about a month ago when I studied for the test and was happy with it. It is shorter than the 2009 version and it is missing the section on hyperlipidemic drugs --- they forgot to print the page or something --- wasn't really a big deal, I just wrote some key info in on a blank page.

As a side note, I think errata are overrated --- if you notice an error while you're studying fix it, if you don't notice it chances are it's not a very testable detail. So, if you want the newest and greatest FA (albeit largely the same), don't let the lack of errata stop you.

 

[Knicks]

I know the 2009 version had upwards of 60 pages of updates over the 2008 version. That convinced me to get the newest edition.

It really depends on how much you're planning to use the book to guide your study. The absolute core material is probably the same. The differences are probably minutia.

What other texts and resources will you be using?

2006-2007 Kaplan books (7-book set) & Goljan = my "main" sources. Was planning to use FA as a checklist-type review book that I can take with me while waiting for the bus, etc.

I highly recommend against getting the newest edition. For some unknown reason, FA has an absolute TON of errors in each new edition. The books are essentially the same thing yet they manage to F things up each year.

The year before's edition already has the official erata published. I found that to be piece of mind. If found few if any differences between the 2007 and 2008 edition.
Your school probably will get the 2009 edition. Just scan through it and photo copy the pages that are markedly different

Yeah, I agree. Thanks for your input.

Hey Depakote, did you notice anything in 2008 that is missing in 2009? Probly a stupid question, but i have the 2008 and just recently ordered the 2009, thought i should combine them if FA 2008. So am i better of just ditching 2008? I really don't want to take any chances.

Hey Knicks, my bad on hijacking your thread for a quick question. I didnt want to start a new thread.. i hope we're good. 👍

Ps. I think you should just buy the new one (get the ebook version). Its a high-yield tool and you dont want to take any chances with the step 1.. its the most important test of your life.

Yeah, we're good. 😎

Yeah I know it's the "most important test of my life", but I'm not planning to use it as a main source, and in fact, I'm using the 2006-2007 Kaplan books as my main source.

I relied heavily on FA 2006 about a month ago when I studied for the test and was happy with it. It is shorter than the 2009 version and it is missing the section on hyperlipidemic drugs --- they forgot to print the page or something --- wasn't really a big deal, I just wrote some key info in on a blank page.

As a side note, I think errata are overrated --- if you notice an error while you're studying fix it, if you don't notice it chances are it's not a very testable detail. So, if you want the newest and greatest FA (albeit largely the same), don't let the lack of errata stop you.

This was some good advice too.... thanks.

 

[hj0517]

dude I did the exam this January, I used 2006 because it was 'mine' in the bound and annotated sense.

Everything thats added into FA is generally covered in other books, and also FA seems to have increased in size so much that it could almost be classed as a crappy basic science encyclopedia rather than a review book.

At the end of the day its upto you, but I'm just saying I used 2006 and was absolutely fine - dont sweat it!

 

[RxnMan]

I didn't get into my intensive prep until I got my 2009 copy (which I've been updating with the ERRTA's as they come out). Can't really tell you too much about the differences between the two, just due to the fact that I only skimmed 2008 as it applied to my coursework during the first half of this year.

In general I say go cheap because the science doesn't change that quickly, but you have a great point. I remember mine being the 2007 edition, and I stayed with it because I had a good list of the errata.

If there's been extensive changes, i.e., correction of errors, then it may be worth it to go new.

 

[GMDMD]

The reality is this is something people stress about but really doesn't matter. Your score is a product of your brain power, the work you put in during the last two years, and probably most importantly, the work you put in during the home stretch.

That being said, just get 2009 so you don't ever doubt yourself during week 3 and start thinking of "what if"s.

edit: actually... if you're not planning on relying on it as your main text, 2006 is more than enough.

 

[Knicks]

dude I did the exam this January, I used 2006 because it was 'mine' in the bound and annotated sense.

Everything thats added into FA is generally covered in other books, and also FA seems to have increased in size so much that it could almost be classed as a crappy basic science encyclopedia rather than a review book.

At the end of the day its upto you, but I'm just saying I used 2006 and was absolutely fine - dont sweat it!

That was very reassuring, but it begs the question: how did you do on the real exam?

In general I say go cheap because the science doesn't change that quickly, but you have a great point. I remember mine being the 2007 edition, and I stayed with it because I had a good list of the errata.

If there's been extensive changes, i.e., correction of errors, then it may be worth it to go new.

Yeah, well, I don't know if there indeed have been "extensive changes" (lol) to it such as correction of errors (which I HIGHLY doubt, considering FA's track-record), which is one of the reasons why I made this thread.

The reality is this is something people stress about but really doesn't matter. Your score is a product of your brain power, the work you put in during the last two years, and probably most importantly, the work you put in during the home stretch.

That being said, just get 2009 so you don't ever doubt yourself during week 3 and start thinking of "what if"s.

edit: actually... if you're not planning on relying on it as your main text, 2006 is more than enough.

Avoiding those "what if"s is another reason why I made this thread. But the thing is, I don't really have those "what if" thoughts with the 2006-2007 kaplan books I'm using because I compared my books with the 2002 Kaplan books and I think they are almost identical. So I was wondering if this is basically the same situation with the FA books.

And regarding your edit: then that makes me feel good, although like I said, my main source is 2006-2007 kaplan books + RR path (dont know the year in that one).

 

[McGillGrad]

I know the 2009 version had upwards of 60 pages of updates over the 2008 version. That convinced me to get the newest edition.

It really depends on how much you're planning to use the book to guide your study. The absolute core material is probably the same. The differences are probably minutia.

What other texts and resources will you be using?

My buddy said the same exact thing. He was going to finish filling in his 2008 when he saw the 2009 and switched.

 

[hj0517]

Knicks: I posted my experience on the 2009 thread but took it off after reading some guys post in the step 2 section about being cited for putting stuff online. I think its still on in quote form though. You are welcome to read the post but to save you a lot of time - I scored 245. My first NBME (6) got me like a 194 I think, and my last UW SA predicted a 249. Like GMDMD said it is not really something to fret about, trust us!

 

[Knicks]

^^ Thanks.

 

[Re3iRtH]

Anyone have a link for the 2008 FA errata?
I couldn't find it with a quick search. Thanks guys.

 

[ZonaRidicularis]

.

 

[Re3iRtH]

First Aid Errata

Look at where it says Archives to find the 2008 stuff

Thanks. Is that a current list? The file says its from 06/08, and that it will
be updated later. But thanks!