Firecracker is pretty awful

[cbrons]

---

Members do not see this ad.

The firecracker flashcards are really bad. The reasons I say this are as follows:

1. Errors - I've found more than a couple errors in a few of the flash cards. Most of these are not outright inaccuracies, but technical inaccuracies.
2. Format of the "front" of the cards - Some of these are just terrible. Some are too wordy to the point where you don't know what you are supposed to re-call, some are in the form of multiple choice questions (I hate inconsistency, so that's just my own preference, not a big deal to many), some ask you to recall WAY too much information for just one card. Flash cards are supposed to be short and simple, not have you recall 2 whole pages out of a textbook.
3. Can't edit the errors. You can add notes to individual cards, but you can't reformat them individually. This is a problem IMO, especially since they are formatted so badly.

Anyway this is just my opinion after a couple months of using it. Yes a lot of people do great with it on Step I, and it is great to have pre-made cards, but it could be 100x better than it actually is right now, and the fact that they don't optimize their cards by changing them into more research-supported recall-friendly structures seems like complete laziness and a rip-off to me.

 

[Brain Bucket]

Because FC needed yet another thread...

You've got some good points, but most of them apply to just about any resource.

I particularly enjoyed your first sentence and wholeheartedly agree with dissuading people from using FC. Especially those who will be participating in the 2016 match.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[001100010010011]

#1 rule of gunning.

Everyone should avoid FA too.

 

[chronicidal]

strong concurrent with OP. use anki instead

 

[ChEMD]

You seem to be expecting firecracker to teach you the information, which I think is a mistake regardless of what review source you are talking about.

FC is designed to be used concurrently with your coursework. So you should be learning the material, and then just using FC as a way to review it. That way, if there is a mistake, you will know it because you just learned it from a real source and you can just ignore it.

FC is in no way perfect, but I use it strictly for long term retention of topics that I have already learned. And for that use, and that use alone, I really like it.

 

[DrEnderW]

Agree with @ chEMD. It's great and insanely convenient for long term retention. You can see when questions are starred for low ratings and it usually comes quick what the errors are. There as updates/edits made daily too, which you can follow. Hopefully those errors will be fixed.

As others said, there's even substantial errata in FA. It's going to happen.

 

[notbobtrustme]

I used it and I realize now that I really didn't need to.

If your choice is between doing well in classes and using FC to retain/learn the information, then do well in your classes. In all of Uworld, there was only 1 or 2 questions that I got right because of Firecracker (eg it had a card on a topic that I had no exposure to before) and that was that Romano-Ward/Jervell-Nieslen long QT syndrome can present with deafness. That is literally it. If you do well in your classes and hit the high yield sources, you can score very well without having to tackle a million cards a day.

The amount of information on the cards is truly superfluous. You can easily cut out 50% or more of the cards and still have all the high yield **** you need to know. On top of that, maybe 5-10% of all the cards are straight up worthless (eg what are the 17 signs of atropine intoxication, what are the 14 s/sx of kerpwaffle syndrome). No one has time for that.

In terms of usefulness, biochem > all. I thought the biochem cards were probably the best written and had the most succinct information on them.

I stopped using FC religiously around Feb and entirely by March and I don't really regret it at all.

That said, I can see how people benefit from this. FC does do a good job of categorizing the information and when you start it early, you can ease up on your boards studying during the dedicated time period. It's one of those "try it before you knock it" kinda things, but in my case, I don't think it gave me that much of a heads up.

 

[001100010010011]

It's just nice because it's a curated deck that focuses on HY information.

Of course, you could tailor your own deck and that would be ideal. The price they're asking for these days is ridiculous. It was definitely worth it (like Picmonic was) when it first came out.

 

[dyspareunia]

I used it and I realize now that I really didn't need to.

If your choice is between doing well in classes and using FC to retain/learn the information, then do well in your classes. In all of Uworld, there was only 1 or 2 questions that I got right because of Firecracker (eg it had a card on a topic that I had no exposure to before) and that was that Romano-Ward/Jervell-Nieslen long QT syndrome can present with deafness. That is literally it. If you do well in your classes and hit the high yield sources, you can score very well without having to tackle a million cards a day.

The amount of information on the cards is truly superfluous. You can easily cut out 50% or more of the cards and still have all the high yield **** you need to know. On top of that, maybe 5-10% of all the cards are straight up worthless (eg what are the 17 signs of atropine intoxication, what are the 14 s/sx of kerpwaffle syndrome). No one has time for that.

In terms of usefulness, biochem > all. I thought the biochem cards were probably the best written and had the most succinct information on them.

I stopped using FC religiously around Feb and entirely by March and I don't really regret it at all.

That said, I can see how people benefit from this. FC does do a good job of categorizing the information and when you start it early, you can ease up on your boards studying during the dedicated time period. It's one of those "try it before you knock it" kinda things, but in my case, I don't think it gave me that much of a heads up.

I think you make good points, but I don't think it's fair to say you only got 1-2 questions right because of FC.

The whole point of FC is to build long term memory and retention of HY topics.. It isn't to teach you things or make things stand out with some crazy mnemonic. In my opinion if you're using FC right you won't necessarily notice when you get questions correct because you did FC. So while you identified 2 correct questions attributable to FC, it's likely that the correct use of FC made topics you "learned" from other resources stick better.

 

[DrEnderW]

I used it and I realize now that I really didn't need to.

If your choice is between doing well in classes and using FC to retain/learn the information, then do well in your classes. In all of Uworld, there was only 1 or 2 questions that I got right because of Firecracker (eg it had a card on a topic that I had no exposure to before) and that was that Romano-Ward/Jervell-Nieslen long QT syndrome can present with deafness. That is literally it. If you do well in your classes and hit the high yield sources, you can score very well without having to tackle a million cards a day.

The amount of information on the cards is truly superfluous. You can easily cut out 50% or more of the cards and still have all the high yield **** you need to know. On top of that, maybe 5-10% of all the cards are straight up worthless (eg what are the 17 signs of atropine intoxication, what are the 14 s/sx of kerpwaffle syndrome). No one has time for that.

In terms of usefulness, biochem > all. I thought the biochem cards were probably the best written and had the most succinct information on them.

I stopped using FC religiously around Feb and entirely by March and I don't really regret it at all.

That said, I can see how people benefit from this. FC does do a good job of categorizing the information and when you start it early, you can ease up on your boards studying during the dedicated time period. It's one of those "try it before you knock it" kinda things, but in my case, I don't think it gave me that much of a heads up.

Have you personally tried the normal vs lite mode?

Does any M2s have any insight on this? I'm not there yet but can imagine doing a similar plan as you and weaning off in the spring.

 

[DermViser]

It's just nice because it's a curated deck that focuses on HY information.

Of course, you could tailor your own deck and that would be ideal. The price they're asking for these days is ridiculous. It was definitely worth it (like Picmonic was) when it first came out.

You mean they kicked the price up? How much was it before?

 

[dyspareunia]

You mean they kicked the price up? How much was it before?

$200/yr back in November.. Even cheaper before that. They routinely run promos though. I've paid a total of $160 for 8 months even though the normal price is $400/12 months.

 

[DermViser]

$200/yr back in November.. Even cheaper before that. They routinely run promos though. I've paid a total of $160 for 8 months even though the normal price is $400/12 months.

At that time it was $200/yr, did it still have:

• 1,838 Topics
• 31,691 Recall Questions
• 1,898 MCQs
• 1,500+ USMLE Questions
• Passing Score Guarantee

 

[dyspareunia]

At that time it was $200/yr, did it still have:

• 1,838 Topics
• 31,691 Recall Questions
• 1,898 MCQs
• 1,500+ USMLE Questions
• Passing Score Guarantee

I'm not sure, but I don't remember any big changes being rolled out since November when I started using it.

 

[Brain Bucket]

At that time it was $200/yr, did it still have:

• 1,838 Topics
• 31,691 Recall Questions
• 1,898 MCQs
• 1,500+ USMLE Questions
• Passing Score Guarantee

I got it for $230 for 2 years. However you look at it, it was a great deal.

 

[001100010010011]

I got it for $230 for 2 years. However you look at it, it was great deal.

Yup. Same here.

 

[notbobtrustme]

yea, i got the $80/9 months deal. At it's current price, no way I would spring for that.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Have you personally tried the normal vs lite mode?

Does any M2s have any insight on this? I'm not there yet but can imagine doing a similar plan as you and weaning off in the spring.

never tried lite mode but I was a newbie with the interface till like January, lol.

 

[cbrons]

You seem to be expecting firecracker to teach you the information,

No, that's the thing - I don't expect the cards to teach me the information. That's why I am complaining about long-winded cards that contain 2+ pages of information copied out of a textbook. Flash cards should be very short and succinct, such as:

Front: Location of lesion with INO
Back: MLF

Front: How does Friedreich's ataxia present in childhood?
Back: Kyphoscoliosis

Front: Cystatin C levels in chronic renal failure?
Back: Decreased

Memorizing stuff like this is useful. Sure you have to actually know what INO is, what Cystatin C is, etc. but that's what learning it in class is for.

Another criticism of FC I didn't mention is how much utterly worthless anatomy they have in there.... and some of these cards are very long-winded as well.

 

[GadRads]

I used it purely for micro. Got it when it was on sale at $70. But in retrospect I didn't need it.

 

[Bancrofti]

No, that's the thing - I don't expect the cards to teach me the information. That's why I am complaining about long-winded cards that contain 2+ pages of information copied out of a textbook. Flash cards should be very short and succinct, such as:

Front: Location of lesion with INO
Back: MLF

Front: How does Friedreich's ataxia present in childhood?
Back: Kyphoscoliosis

Front: Cystatin C levels in chronic renal failure?
Back: Decreased

Memorizing stuff like this is useful. Sure you have to actually know what INO is, what Cystatin C is, etc. but that's what learning it in class is for.

Another criticism of FC I didn't mention is how much utterly worthless anatomy they have in there.... and some of these cards are very long-winded as well.

Sounds like you're mad because you bought something that has a month-long free trial and realized afterwards that you don't like it. It also sounds like you haven't figured out how to cater the program to your own likings as yet. If you think the anatomy cards have too much info or are too low-yield...... don't flag them. If you only think 1 or 2 questions are worth your time, flag the topic and choose do not see for the rest. If you think all topics in general contain too much info... switch to light/normal mode. If you think too much info is provided in the answers... only read the bolded part that contains the pertinent info for the question. If you think there is newer or research-based info that may show up on the step that isn't covered... create your own topics so that it can be part of your review.

I haven't seen anyone that uses it say the program doesn't have any faults. However, the people that complain the most seem to either not know how to put it to use for themselves in a way that makes most efficient use of their time OR the FC platform is just completely incompatible with how they would prefer to learn and would have learned that if they used the FREE MONTH long trial effectively.

 

[DrEnderW]

No, that's the thing - I don't expect the cards to teach me the information. That's why I am complaining about long-winded cards that contain 2+ pages of information copied out of a textbook. Flash cards should be very short and succinct, such as:

Front: Location of lesion with INO
Back: MLF

Front: How does Friedreich's ataxia present in childhood?
Back: Kyphoscoliosis

Front: Cystatin C levels in chronic renal failure?
Back: Decreased

Memorizing stuff like this is useful. Sure you have to actually know what INO is, what Cystatin C is, etc. but that's what learning it in class is for.

Another criticism of FC I didn't mention is how much utterly worthless anatomy they have in there.... and some of these cards are very long-winded as well.

I hear ya on the long winded part sometimes. However, I always answer in my head a quick few words and then read the longer card if I need the explanation. Greater than 50% of the time I answer in 2 seconds and move on. It's nice to have an explanation when you don't recall everything. That's what I'm paying for - convenience and details when I don't recall something. Sure, you may have crushed a biochem test 10 months ago, but that doesn't mean at the end of M2 you'll have the details down pat.

If I was you, I just wouldn't flag anatomy. Just leave that topic alone. Personally, I think the details are great because I want to do surgery and know anatomy cold. If I didn't, I wouldn't flag it. The program goes above the minimum Step 1 details in some areas, no question. If you don't want to retain that stuff, don't flag those cards.

No one is forcing you to buy the program if it's not for you. I don't complain about picmonic because I don't like it - I just done use it. This is like buying a year long gym membership without trying it out a few times or leasing a car without a test drive. You could have done 100qs a day for 30 days... Literally 3000 questions to decide it wasn't for you.

 

[WilliamsEph]

Waiting breathlessly for the op's reveal that he switched to enki and life was perfect! jk

 

[Lafakads]

No, that's the thing - I don't expect the cards to teach me the information. That's why I am complaining about long-winded cards that contain 2+ pages of information copied out of a textbook. Flash cards should be very short and succinct, such as:

Front: Location of lesion with INO
Back: MLF

Front: How does Friedreich's ataxia present in childhood?
Back: Kyphoscoliosis

Front: Cystatin C levels in chronic renal failure?
Back: Decreased

Memorizing stuff like this is useful. Sure you have to actually know what INO is, what Cystatin C is, etc. but that's what learning it in class is for.

Another criticism of FC I didn't mention is how much utterly worthless anatomy they have in there.... and some of these cards are very long-winded as well.

So I think the reason for all the anatomy is that firecracker provides enough information to pass an "Anatomy Shelf" if your school gives one. Thats what a representative that came to our school said. So there may be sections with more information than first aid, but its also for other exams.

 

[cbrons]

Sounds like you're mad because you bought something that has a month-long free trial and realized afterwards that you don't like it. It also sounds like you haven't figured out how to cater the program to your own likings as yet. If you think the anatomy cards have too much info or are too low-yield...... don't flag them. If you only think 1 or 2 questions are worth your time, flag the topic and choose do not see for the rest. If you think all topics in general contain too much info... switch to light/normal mode. If you think too much info is provided in the answers... only read the bolded part that contains the pertinent info for the question. If you think there is newer or research-based info that may show up on the step that isn't covered... create your own topics so that it can be part of your review.

I haven't seen anyone that uses it say the program doesn't have any faults. However, the people that complain the most seem to either not know how to put it to use for themselves in a way that makes most efficient use of their time OR the FC platform is just completely incompatible with how they would prefer to learn and would have learned that if they used the FREE MONTH long trial effectively.

Blah blah blah didn't read past the first sentence. I purchased it for 6 months at a deep discount, so your initial assumption is false and the rest of your post is probably not worth reading.

Reason I made this thread is primarily because I think Firecracker could be 100x better than it is right now, but the developers over there are just too lazy/clueless to fix the reported problems and do some serious re-organizing. It's a very good program in theory, and some of the sections are pretty good as is. But, it's far from what it could be, and maybe by FC devs reading posts like this they get motivated to do something about it.

 

[Bancrofti]

Blah blah blah didn't read past the first sentence. I purchased it for 6 months at a deep discount, so your initial assumption is false and the rest of your post is probably not worth reading.

Reason I made this thread is primarily because I think Firecracker could be 100x better than it is right now, but the developers over there are just too lazy/clueless to fix the reported problems and do some serious re-organizing. It's a very good program in theory, and some of the sections are pretty good as is. But, it's far from what it could be, and maybe by FC devs reading posts like this they get motivated to do something about it.

P.S. there's a Firecracker thread dedicated to all talk FC related, a thread a Firecracker rep has posted in...

 

[cbrons]

Example of uncorrected error in FC despite 10 reports about it:

Front: Where is renin secreted from?

Back: Macula densa provide signal for the JGA (juxtaglomerular apparatus) smooth muscle cells of the afferent arteriole to secrete renin

Correct answer = granular cells of the JG apparatus secrete renin. No idea why they bolded Macula densa or list smooth muscle cells in the answer.

 

[ChEMD]

Example of uncorrected error in FC despite 10 reports about it:

Front: Where is renin secreted from?

Back: Macula densa provide signal for the JGA (juxtaglomerular apparatus) smooth muscle cells of the afferent arteriole to secrete renin

Correct answer = granular cells of the JG apparatus secrete renin. No idea why they bolded Macula densa or list smooth muscle cells in the answer.

What is wrong with their answer? The JG cells that secrete renin are modified smooth muscle cells within the afferent arteriole...and the macula densa signals to those cells to release renin. Is it possible that you are just frustrated that the nomenclature that you learned (granular cells) is different than the nomenclature that they use (JG smooth muscle cells)? Did you ever think that the reason they called them granular cells is because they store renin in granules, but they might also have another name?

As far as the complaint about the macula densa being bolded, I would argue that knowing the sensing mechanism is within the macula densa is more important than knowing the name of the cells that actually secrete renin.

 

[tantacles]

What is wrong with their answer? The JG cells that secrete renin are modified smooth muscle cells within the afferent arteriole...and the macula densa signals to those cells to release renin. Is it possible that you are just frustrated that the nomenclature that you learned (granular cells) is different than the nomenclature that they use (JG smooth muscle cells)? Did you ever think that they called them granular cells is because they store renin in granules, but they might also have another name?

As far as the complaint about the macula densa being bolded, I would argue that knowing that the sensing mechanism within the macula densa is more important than knowing the name of the cells that actually secret renin.

I would argue that neither is particularly important, but that having study materials that are clear and accurate is crucial.

 

[ChEMD]

I would argue that neither is particularly important, but that having study materials that are clear and accurate is crucial.

I absolutely agree, but their answer is correct.

 

[tantacles]

When the question is "Where is renin secreted from?"

And the bolded part of the answer is "Macula Densa," you have a serious clarity issue.

 

[ChEMD]

When the question is "Where is renin secreted from?"

And the bolded part of the answer is "Macula Densa," you have a serious clarity issue.

When I read the entire sentence, I have no problem understanding which cells secrete renin. Anyone that is getting caught up on which word is bolded needs to seriously relax; that is way too minor to be causing you any stress.

It seems like the people that have a problem with FC are upset because the information is presented in a different way than they are used to seeing it in their classes. If you are not someone who can easily adapt, FC may not be for you.

 

[tantacles]

When I read the entire sentence, I have no problem understanding which cells secrete renin. Anyone that is getting caught up on which word is bolded needs to seriously relax; that is way too minor to be causing you any stress.

It seems like the people that have a problem with FC are upset because the information is presented in a different way than they are used to seeing it in their classes. If you are not someone who can easily adapt, FC may not be for you.

I don't use Firecracker, but this would be a distinct reason not to use it. I expect classwork to be chaotic; PhDs aren't concerned with teaching despite the fact that they're being paid to do so, and that's how things have been for many years.

With test prep, though, since those materials are made exclusively for teaching and I pay a premium for them, I expect near-perfection.

 

[ChEMD]

I don't use Firecracker, but this would be a distinct reason not to use it. I expect classwork to be chaotic; PhDs aren't concerned with teaching despite the fact that they're being paid to do so, and that's how things have been for many years.

With test prep, though, since those materials are made exclusively for teaching and I pay a premium for them, I expect near-perfection.

You may want to avoid all review sources then, including FA, as there are plenty of mistakes all around.

 

[tantacles]

You may want to avoid all review sources then, including FA, as there are plenty of mistakes all around.

Cute.

 

[Cinematographer]

Seeing "excepting near-perfection..." and "test prep materials" in the same sentence made for a good laugh. We would all be talking about doing multiple passes of big Robbins during or step study period if we excepted near-perfection from resources like FA/FC.

 

[cbrons]

You may want to avoid all review sources then, including FA, as there are plenty of mistakes all around.

The problem is a lot of these errors/clarity issues have been reported multiple times to FC and they haven't changed it. With how much they are charging, these cards should be absolutely pristine and in a format that is best for clear and accurate recall.

 

[GrabSlamBoot]

The problem is a lot of these errors/clarity issues have been reported multiple times to FC and they haven't changed it. With how much they are charging, these cards should be absolutely pristine and in a format that is best for clear and accurate recall.

They now allow you to see when a card has been updated and they are updating their material pretty regularly. I'm not saying the product is perfect but if your committed to using a spaced repetition program for step studying then it's either this or Anki. And when I make Anki cards, trust me I have a lot of mistakes that i catch in subsequent reviews.

 

[xadmin]

I agree, Firecracker is pretty awful. The cards, question and answers are pretty bad.

 

[cbrons]

Well I still have firecracker, because I can't find any other suitable replacement for structured and scheduled content review. I've noticed that over the past 4 months, the cards have not gotten better. I went through about 300 today and in many of them (40 or more), I noticed serious omissions, incomplete or poorly worded explanations, irrelevant/useless/"factoidal" (extremely low yield) information, and/or downright erroneous information. I still think this product is way overpriced for such low quality and poorly organized information. Outright falsehoods are relatively rare, however, very poorly worded and misleading explanations are quite common. Just one of many examples:

From: Imprinting (Prader Willi and Angelman Syndromes)
Uniparental disomy causes about 5% of Angelman syndrome cases. In the case of Angelman syndrome, if the disomic pair is paternally inherited (two copies of the paternal chromosome), they will both be imprinted and no functional maternal copies will be inherited, thus causing Angelman syndrome.

^^ I understand what this card is saying, but the truth is that the person who wrote this probably copied this out of a textbook and tried (very badly) to make it say the same thing the textbook did while putting it in "their own words." Uniparental disomy in general does not necessarily mean that you get 2 entire copies of the chromosome (like the first bolded part suggests). It could mean that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that. Additionally (and more problematically) the use of the word "imprinted" in this explanation is almost guaranteed to mislead people. If the paternal allele is imprinted, it means it is silenced (and you have monoallelic expression from the maternal allele). And that is what happens normally! Why are they suggesting that this is some abnormal result of getting two copies of the chromosome from the father? In normal individuals the paternal allele is always imprinted (therefore it is not expressed). Paternal imprinting of this part of the chromosome (15) doesn't have a damn thing to do with the fact that there are two copies. The reason this is important is because there is ANOTHER way you can inherit Angelman syndrome and that is when the maternal allele is errantly imprinted (and therefore not expressed) - in that case, the paternal allele would be normal, meaning it would still be imprinted and silenced.

I would guess the person who wrote this part of the section did not understand much of the terminology he was using. Moreover, it makes me think that this sort of thing is common in the authorship of these flashcards. Probably a lot of this material is copied in a very half-assed manner from USMLE review books, but again in a way that makes it seem like its an original explanation.

My other problem is something that may not bother some types of students. That is the fact that FC has 0 consistency in formatting. They have no standardization of terminology, even in individual sections (which is also strong evidence much of this stuff was copied from review books in the manner I previously explained). Am I the only one who gets annoyed when they use "Tc" "cytotoxic T lymphocyte" "killer T cell" "CD8+ T cell" etc... I realize it's the same damn thing and might seem very nit-picky/obsessive-compulsive, but its annoying when there is no consistency. When they use a variety of terms for the same thing it becomes very obvious that the information was copy/pasted and makes the truth of the information rather suspect. Additionally, their use of equations is not in a format that is easily readable. This is annoying for people who want to go through the cards quickly... at least use LaTeX or something (whatever the formatting code you need) to make it look like an actual fraction/equation that is clear. Instead of "Kc(HPc-HPi)-σ(OPc-OPi)" can you please make a little effort to make it more clear/presentable, such as:

Also, the cards are incredibly inconsistent in terms of how much recall they expect. "Name 6 diseases marked by Type 2 Hypersensitivity" --- this yields the equivalent of 3 pages of information detailing each disease and it's highlighted in green. Are you really expecting people to recall all of that information? Obviously not, so cut down on the answers/green highlighted section. For some subjects, FC has a textbook chapter worth of detail, for others it has bullet points, and others are somewhere in the middle. Is this a program for flashcard recall or is it a program where you go to learn about the individual testable subjects in detail? To me it seems like they have a very difficult time deciding which one they want to be. The result is that some subjects have enough info to help you in preclinical science courses, some have just enough for Step I info (but not enough for class studying), and others are succinct enough to be used for simple flashcard recall (which is presumably what a lot of people sign up for). There is a lot of fluff, and as I already explained, there is a lot of poorly written content.

Hopefully FC will read this review and consider some of these suggestions...