Firecracker

[JackShephard MD]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

med.firecracker.me

New medical education website rooted in an adaptive learning platform. Looks impressive, check it out.

Cheers.

 

[Bancrofti]

Pain isn't referred in parietal pain (as in the GB "hitting" the parietal peritoneum). The question stem is about referred pain, so parietal peritoneum shouldn't even be on your mind. Boas sign is referred pain to the scapula as in cholecystitis.. at least that's how we learned it. The referred pain is due to afferent fibers running with the phrenic nerve as a result of the diaphragms embrologic origin (septum transversum).

Hepatitis pain is well localized because it is parietal pain (pushing on the parietal peritoneum). The gall bladder would have to get extremely large to cause parietal pain and the reason referred pain (and not parietal pain) is associated with cholecystitis is because of the pathogenesis (i.e. the referred pain is so intolerable that the patient will come in with a complaint before the cholecystitis ever progresses to parietal pain).

Thanks. It's been a while since Anatomy for me and it's the section I flagged the least so I'm a bit rusty.

I get the referred pain, that makes sense, I guess my final question would be what is the mechanism of irritation to the diaphragm caused by gall stones. Obviously we know we'll have a backup of bile behind the stone, but how does that manifest as something that specifically irritates the diaphragm in a way that no other liver pathology does?

 

[Bancrofti]

Answering that question made me forget why I originally came in this thread.

Are any of you MS2s also doing a Qbank right now? I'm planning on doing Kaplan Qbank throughout MS2 (I'm an MS1 now), but I wasn't sure if it's possible to do FC and a Qbank during the year.

I started Firecracker late in the summer between MS1 and MS2. I purchased Kaplan Qbank at the beginning of the term as well and purchased Rx halfway through just because I knew at some point I would need to get through it and my school had the discount.

So far I've only used the Kaplan qbank for the Pathology questions and a bit of micro. I think I've touched randomly a few other sections i.e. less than 20 questions each of Anatomy, Immunology, and Behavioral. However, I did do all of the systems WebPath questions.

I think it depends largely on 2 things: when did you start Firecracker (so how heavy is your daily question load due to your mastery) and how important good grades in classes matter to you. It can be done, but it will take a decent amount of your time, especially if you have a decent daily load of hat allowed me questions. I had to figure out a system to study that allowed me to still do firecracker without it being much of a burden. And even with that I still had to let it fall to the side about a week and a half before finals.

 

[ulikedaggers]

Thanks. It's been a while since Anatomy for me and it's the section I flagged the least so I'm a bit rusty.

I get the referred pain, that makes sense, I guess my final question would be what is the mechanism of irritation to the diaphragm caused by gall stones. Obviously we know we'll have a backup of bile behind the stone, but how does that manifest as something that specifically irritates the diaphragm in a way that no other liver pathology does?

Yeah I'm not really sure. We learned that there is referred pain (eventually) in hepatomegaly, for example, but in most cases the parietal pain brings the patient in before the liver begins to affect the diaphragm enough to cause referred pain. If I'm not mistaken, the gallbladder is sandwiched between the liver anteriorly and abdominal wall (from septum transversum) posteriorly so essentially it's going to push on visceral peritoneum of the liver as well as directly onto septum transversum.

 

[scoKraz4]

I am just starting to use FC and was wondering if anyone had any insight on the algorithm used to determine how many days later a question will come up again as review. I just notice that when I mark questions as a 1 or 2, they both set the question for 1 day later. Do the number of days change as you encounter the question more times? Is there anyway to view the previous rating you gave a question? Any input would be appreciated, thank you.

 

[Bancrofti]

I am just starting to use FC and was wondering if anyone had any insight on the algorithm used to determine how many days later a question will come up again as review. I just notice that when I mark questions as a 1 or 2, they both set the question for 1 day later. Do the number of days change as you encounter the question more times? Is there anyway to view the previous rating you gave a question? Any input would be appreciated, thank you.

Yes, the number of days changes based on how many times you've answered the question. The algorithm also includes consideration for what you previously rated a question, but as of yet there is no way to see how you previously rated it. Likewise, I don't think anyone knows the exact algorithm. So in your case, if you're rating something a 2 and it's showing up as scheduled for a day later, you either recently flagged that question or in successive question appearances you may not have marked it very high.

i.e. There was a topic I flagged early in my firecracker prep. I couldn't remember the details of the answer even though I knew I used to know the answer like the back of my hand a couple months ago. I looked to see how soon I would be seeing it again after I ranked it a 2 and it was still something like ~7 days. Whereas if there was something I just flagged last week and already forgot the answer and I rank it a 2, I'll also see it the next day. I don't think I've ever really ranked something a "1." I think it's tough to completely have no idea about something if you read the card before flagging it.

 

[Lafakads]

Are you guys spending a lot of time memorizing the muscle functions that FC gives? I'm not sure if that info is that important for Step 1.

Well right now I'm an MS1 and step 1 is a bit far away so I'm unsure how I should be using FC. I thought FC was literally just first aid in notecard version? But I just bought First Aid and the anatomy section of FC WAY more in depth then what it looks like that I need to know.

I guess I should only flag topics that are in First Aid? I think thats what im going to do anyways now, look at both and then decide that way. Like do I really need to know the three muscles that make up the spinal erectors?

 

[001100010010011]

You're a M1 so you have time. Many people avoid flagging anatomy since it's not as HY.

 

[mcloaf]

Well right now I'm an MS1 and step 1 is a bit far away so I'm unsure how I should be using FC. I thought FC was literally just first aid in notecard version? But I just bought First Aid and the anatomy section of FC WAY more in depth then what it looks like that I need to know.

I guess I should only flag topics that are in First Aid? I think thats what im going to do anyways now, look at both and then decide that way. Like do I really need to know the three muscles that make up the spinal erectors?

I can't shed any light on what you need to know for Step 1 since I'm just another M1, but FC does use more than just First Aid to generate their content. First Aid is the backbone for sure, but I believe they fill in with other popular USMLE resources as well (Robbins, Goljan, etc.). That said, I have no clue where they get their anatomy content.

As for only flagging stuff that you see in FA, that's sort of your call. Again I don't have any first hand knowledge, but based on what I've read around here everything in FA is USMLE testable, but not everything that you could get on Step 1 will necessarily be in FA.

 

[surag]

Honestly I think FC is overrated. I've done all the content and questions and find that it is an inferior product the more I have used it.

I am a third year studying for the USMLE and a DO- and I find its value significantly lower than I originally had.

FC is 90% First Aid when excluding the micro/pharm/anatomy section. Everything is almost straight from FA and I wonder how they skirt the copyright issue- I guess its all the same material tested right- but so much over lap.

Anyway- having studied a lot of other sources I would say their primary way of adding material outside of FA is via doing q banks. I suspect after having done UWorld, USMLERX and a few others they cull info not in FA and include it in here. This gives students an artificial sense of learning when they come across similar q on practice exams. though its misleading. They claim they are comprehensive but I don't really see it tha tway. there is a lot of arbitrariness in the material they include outside of FA such as in vascular infarcts including Binswanger's infarct when neither Kaplan Comprehensive, nor FA, nor pathoma, nor BRS path include it (at least the 2004 BRS).

Their biggest problem is in diagrams. They have a poor user interface where diagrams and tables and images which make the new FA so so so high yield and kaplan so easy to follow are not included due to copyright issues. Worse they include free images that are poor for teaching and learning- so the anatomy images from 1890 Greys is garbage for you to use.

If you really want to use FC you are better off just antotating its facts into your FA book which is what I do now. The questions are exceedingly 1 step q and have very limited clinical content.

if you want real prep you should do USMLERX, kaplan qbank, UWorld, and other qbanks, skip the question format of FC and just antotate into FA.

FA's table structure is way superior to this stupid adaptive learning experiment. Do I remember a lot of random facts because of FC? yea - but it doesnt help me squat with doing clinical based q's that make up the USMLE- as in the other qbanks.

FC is a collosal waste of time if used as intended. trust me I've done that. The people who succeed are the ones who have done it from start of school and already either had a strong background or because they learned it from other sources during school- notes etc, FC is a complementary tool to ensure they remember that material. On its own, as a learning source it is a failure. Those high scores you hear- I doubt they were from normal students who had normal grades and magically aced USMLE because they used FC plus UWorld and skipped or gave less time to FA.

 

[mcloaf]

Do I remember a lot of random facts because of FC? yea.

Isn't this the whole point?

 

[sanj238]

a

 

[Lafakads]

I can't shed any light on what you need to know for Step 1 since I'm just another M1, but FC does use more than just First Aid to generate their content. First Aid is the backbone for sure, but I believe they fill in with other popular USMLE resources as well (Robbins, Goljan, etc.). That said, I have no clue where they get their anatomy content.

As for only flagging stuff that you see in FA, that's sort of your call. Again I don't have any first hand knowledge, but based on what I've read around here everything in FA is USMLE testable, but not everything that you could get on Step 1 will necessarily be in FA.

Gotcha, maybe ill take a crack at the biochem section and see how it is. I was just looking at anatomy and I guess other people agree its a lot more than FA, but biochem seems to be more similar.

 

[surag]

Gotcha, maybe ill take a crack at the biochem section and see how it is. I was just looking at anatomy and I guess other people agree its a lot more than FA, but biochem seems to be more similar.

I would recommend High Yield Anatomy. Its 300 pages but a small book- there's a lot of info but its got images and everything. Very well put together.

I would say that knowing that plus FA plus clinical cases Anatomy is your best bet. If you really want to learn more hten I'd learn all those books and after that buy USMLE anatomy roadmap because it has more detail but its overwhelming without the above books first.

Firecracker anatomy is overrated - its got unnecessary muscles that are just low low low did i say low yield. Their clinical oriented anatomy can e helpful but is too overwhelming without book sources.

 

[surag]

Isn't this the whole point?

No. The point is to learn and FC fails to teach material in anyway. its a hodgepodge of information with no rhyme or reason why its there when it comes to content NOT in FA. The extraneous stuff- can be helpful but it also excludes more high yield material which makes FC a total waste of time other than to anotate.

When will people realize its a tool created by students with little understanding of what kind of medicine we need to know?

 

[mcloaf]

The point is to learn and FC fails to teach material in anyway.

I'm not trying to be contrarian, but it seems like you're getting upset that FC fails to be something that most people around here wouldn't consider it to be in the first place. Namely, it's memory retention tool, not a primary learning resource (I'm going off of how it's talked about/used on SDN, I'm not really sure how their marketing material tries to spin it). With that in mind, I've been learning my material elsewhere, but FC has been a pretty painless and easy way to remember a lot. I was under the impression that the big knock on FC is that it's debatable whether or not spending so much time on retention of stuff is a worthwhile investment. It's been pretty low intensity first year, but I know it will get to be much more of a pain as time goes on.

As for the material outside of FA, you may well be totally right about that. I won't know for another 1.5 years.

 

[surag]

I'm not trying to be contrarian, but it seems like you're getting upset that FC fails to be something that most people around here wouldn't consider it to be in the first place. Namely, it's memory retention tool, not a primary learning resource (I'm going off of how it's talked about/used on SDN, I'm not really sure how their marketing material tries to spin it). With that in mind, I've been learning my material elsewhere, but FC has been a pretty painless and easy way to remember a lot. I was under the impression that the big knock on FC is that it's debatable whether or not spending so much time on retention of stuff is a worthwhile investment. It's been pretty low intensity first year, but I know it will get to be much more of a pain as time goes on.

As for the material outside of FA, you may well be totally right about that. I won't know for another 1.5 years.

Well, I think FC is a great tool to use throughout medical school curriculum so if you're a first year starting with this stuff then you're ahead of the game.

But if you're using it like a lot of us did - around second year or after- its basically useless and dangerous waste of time.

 

[mcloaf]

Well, I think FC is a great tool to use throughout medical school curriculum so if you're a first year starting with this stuff then you're ahead of the game.

But if you're using it like a lot of us did - around second year or after- its basically useless and dangerous waste of time.

Heh, yeah, that's what I read on here that pretty much scared me into using it for M1. 😉

 

[surag]

Heh, yeah, that's what I read on here that pretty much scared me into using it for M1. 😉

In all honesty I would say gunner is not worth it for the effort in time. You're better off using something kaplan comrepehensive if you're willing to spend that kind of time. I honestly wish I had used it sooner.

I plan to use gunner after I finish step 1 - mostly to make sure I remember it for all the pimp questions during 4th year. I think its use is great for rapid recall but not really as a way to understand.

 

[Apoplexy__]

Honestly I think FC is overrated. I've done all the content and questions and find that it is an inferior product the more I have used it.

I feel like you were rating FC as a learning product, though. Like mcloaf said, the whole point of it is repetition and retention; I would never use it as a primary learning resource. When the name of the game of med school is repetition, FC is a solid tool.

Now, the argument against FC by comparing it to a comprehensive Anki deck is one I can understand...

 

[Bancrofti]

No. The point is to learn and FC fails to teach material in anyway. its a hodgepodge of information with no rhyme or reason why its there when it comes to content NOT in FA. The extraneous stuff- can be helpful but it also excludes more high yield material which makes FC a total waste of time other than to anotate.

When will people realize its a tool created by students with little understanding of what kind of medicine we need to know?

Somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

#1: It's purpose is NOT to teach you the material. Further, none of the major review methods are meant to TEACH you the material. If that were the case you could just give Average Joe off the street a 1st aid book, two months to study, and expect him to pass. Your first 2 years in medical school are meant to teach you, everything else is a supplement.
#2: If you attempted to use FC during your second year without looking at reviews of the program and when it was recommended to be started to be most beneficial, that is your fault, not the program's.
#3: Everything contains "superfluous" material. The most concise resource we have is 1st aid, which doesn't even cover everything. By definition, anything that isn't on your exam is extraneous information. How exactly do you want everyone to narrow things down for you? The program is meant to be thorough and never once said that every single thing is guaranteed to be on your exam. There is a high yield option on FC for people that don't want to deal with all the extra material due to a lack of time, the extra info not fitting in the structured schedule... or laziness.

1st aid content is student based as well... I guess we should get rid of that as a recommended source as well?

 

[surag]

Somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

#1: It's purpose is NOT to teach you the material. Further, none of the major review methods are meant to TEACH you the material. If that were the case you could just give Average Joe off the street a 1st aid book, two months to study, and expect him to pass. Your first 2 years in medical school are meant to teach you, everything else is a supplement.
#2: If you attempted to use FC during your second year without looking at reviews of the program and when it was recommended to be started to be most beneficial, that is your fault, not the program's.
#3: Everything contains "superfluous" material. The most concise resource we have is 1st aid, which doesn't even cover everything. By definition, anything that isn't on your exam is extraneous information. How exactly do you want everyone to narrow things down for you? The program is meant to be thorough and never once said that every single thing is guaranteed to be on your exam. There is a high yield option on FC for people that don't want to deal with all the extra material due to a lack of time, the extra info not fitting in the structured schedule... or laziness.

1st aid content is student based as well... I guess we should get rid of that as a recommended source as well?

Actually it seems like you got off on the wrong side of the bed.

I never maintained that FA was ta comprehensive source. Actually I'm pretty positive if you gave Joe Average FA and asked him to memorize everything and Joe Average had the minimum IQ to be a doctor then Joe Average is fairly qualified. This assumes he spent adequate time on FA. And no 2 months time is not enough. Give him a year plust UWorld and yes.

Medical knowledge is not what separates medical doctors from the layperson. If that were the case then we would all start med school after high school- like most of the world. Instead, in the US, medicine is understood to be a privilege that requires dedication and hardwork. Both of which are tested by the years necessary in UG to get through into med school. There is also the acumen component- hence the MCAT.

There are sources out there that when taken together are comprehensive enough to ace the USMLE and provide you with adequate knowledge to start off well as a doctor- Kaplan comprehensive+ high yield anatomy+ usmleroadmap anatomy+ high yield mol bio + FA + pathoma+ goljan path+ UWorld

Make what you will of the rigor of that but those are all review sources and a combination of them is fine- and really Kaplan comprehensive on its own is just fine plus qbanks to gain repetition.

I think you are fooling yourself if you think the material "taught" in med school is what separates you or anyone from the general public. that material you learn you will barely remember at the end of each year. By fourth year the only material you will retain is whatever you've managed to keep up with for your USMLE studies. FC will help with that - assuming people start early with it.

Most people actually do see FC is a primary learning tool. In fact a lot of people purchase it during usmle prep at the start of second year hoping to use it throughout. In fact, FC primarily advertises itself as a USMLE prep tool- in its advertisements and so forth. maybe its changing now- but it was exactly advertised as such a year ago.

Furthermore- FC is a pointless tool to use if you intend to continue with it for 2 years. Whatever material you memorize can easily be reviewed understood and retained with repetition at the start of your second year with other sources like Kaplan comprehensive that offer a better way to learn- understand the material deeply- apply it to concepts NOT in FC or FA and profit long term. Whereas FC for two years will make you very good at regurgitating facts from FC and no guarantee that material will help u understand concepts long term.

If you think using it in conjunction with say your renal physio is beneficial realize that the physiology in FC is so limited you might as well not bother with it since so many key concepts are skipped by it and whatever you learned in renal physio during school will simply be lost since its neither covered nor explained in FC. Go ahead and open your brs physio book and read the renal chapter- then compare it with what you learned in FC.

The idea of spaced learning is excellent. its precisely what I am using except with kaplan comprehensive and self maintained. The problem with FC spaced learning is that you are retaining only FC facts as opposed to synthesizing concepts.

Finally, the idea that if the material is not on the exam is superflous is stupid. USMLE has a pdf that includes in broad and specific headings everything you need to cover. So just because its not tested on your test doesnt mean its extraneous. It just wasnt tested that day. so "by definition" whats extraneous is whats not covered by those topics. Nothing like a strawman argument.

Finally, you've missed my point. FC has material- im not saying its not testable. I'm saying they've chosen material at the expense of more HIGH YIELD material they should HAVE included. How do I know? By doing UWorld, USMLERX, and Kaplan qbanks. So please, do tell me why they included material on Binswanger's but conveniently ignored Homer Rosette pseudorosettes for brain cancer when it is far more high yield (on 2 of the qbanks and in two high yield path resources- brs and goljan)?

The issue here is not just content- but the amount of time- exceptional time- needed to cover FC yet not having its comprehensiveness be commensurate with the time involved to learn

 

[Bancrofti]

Actually it seems like you got off on the wrong side of the bed.

I never maintained that FA was ta comprehensive source. Actually I'm pretty positive if you gave Joe Average FA and asked him to memorize everything and Joe Average had the minimum IQ to be a doctor then Joe Average is fairly qualified. This assumes he spent adequate time on FA. And no 2 months time is not enough. Give him a year plust UWorld and yes.

Medical knowledge is not what separates medical doctors from the layperson. If that were the case then we would all start med school after high school- like most of the world. Instead, in the US, medicine is understood to be a privilege that requires dedication and hardwork. Both of which are tested by the years necessary in UG to get through into med school. There is also the acumen component- hence the MCAT.

There are sources out there that when taken together are comprehensive enough to ace the USMLE and provide you with adequate knowledge to start off well as a doctor- Kaplan comprehensive+ high yield anatomy+ usmleroadmap anatomy+ high yield mol bio + FA + pathoma+ goljan path+ UWorld

Make what you will of the rigor of that but those are all review sources and a combination of them is fine- and really Kaplan comprehensive on its own is just fine plus qbanks to gain repetition.

I think you are fooling yourself if you think the material "taught" in med school is what separates you or anyone from the general public. that material you learn you will barely remember at the end of each year. By fourth year the only material you will retain is whatever you've managed to keep up with for your USMLE studies. FC will help with that - assuming people start early with it.

Most people actually do see FC is a primary learning tool. In fact a lot of people purchase it during usmle prep at the start of second year hoping to use it throughout. In fact, FC primarily advertises itself as a USMLE prep tool- in its advertisements and so forth. maybe its changing now- but it was exactly advertised as such a year ago.

Furthermore- FC is a pointless tool to use if you intend to continue with it for 2 years. Whatever material you memorize can easily be reviewed understood and retained with repetition at the start of your second year with other sources like Kaplan comprehensive that offer a better way to learn- understand the material deeply- apply it to concepts NOT in FC or FA and profit long term. Whereas FC for two years will make you very good at regurgitating facts from FC and no guarantee that material will help u understand concepts long term.

If you think using it in conjunction with say your renal physio is beneficial realize that the physiology in FC is so limited you might as well not bother with it since so many key concepts are skipped by it and whatever you learned in renal physio during school will simply be lost since its neither covered nor explained in FC. Go ahead and open your brs physio book and read the renal chapter- then compare it with what you learned in FC.

The idea of spaced learning is excellent. its precisely what I am using except with kaplan comprehensive and self maintained. The problem with FC spaced learning is that you are retaining only FC facts as opposed to synthesizing concepts.

Finally, the idea that if the material is not on the exam is superflous is stupid. USMLE has a pdf that includes in broad and specific headings everything you need to cover. So just because its not tested on your test doesnt mean its extraneous. It just wasnt tested that day. so "by definition" whats extraneous is whats not covered by those topics. Nothing like a strawman argument.

Finally, you've missed my point. FC has material- im not saying its not testable. I'm saying they've chosen material at the expense of more HIGH YIELD material they should HAVE included. How do I know? By doing UWorld, USMLERX, and Kaplan qbanks. So please, do tell me why they included material on Binswanger's but conveniently ignored Homer Rosette pseudorosettes for brain cancer when it is far more high yield (on 2 of the qbanks and in two high yield path resources- brs and goljan)?

The issue here is not just content- but the amount of time- exceptional time- needed to cover FC yet not having its comprehensiveness be commensurate with the time involved to learn

Frustrated enough as it trying to review heme at the moment, definitely not going through that novel. Maybe later when in my inevitable SDN procrastination time.

 

[docterspaceman]

Honestly I think FC is overrated. I've done all the content and questions and find that it is an inferior product the more I have used it.

I am a third year studying for the USMLE and a DO- and I find its value significantly lower than I originally had.

Is it common for DO's to take the USMLE in their third year? Why not take it with the COMLEX at the end of 2nd year? Just curious.

 

[AnalisCanalis]

Medical knowledge is not what separates medical doctors from the layperson. If that were the case then we would all start med school after high school- like most of the world. Instead, in the US, medicine is understood to be a privilege that requires dedication and hardwork. Both of which are tested by the years necessary in UG to get through into med school. There is also the acumen component- hence the MCAT.

I think you are fooling yourself if you think the material "taught" in med school is what separates you or anyone from the general public. that material you learn you will barely remember at the end of each year. By fourth year the only material you will retain is whatever you've managed to keep up with for your USMLE studies. FC will help with that - assuming people start early with it.

That's the stupidest thing I've read on SDN.

 

[ulikedaggers]

Can any other MS2s weigh on in the possibility of doing FC, a Qbank (like Kaplan), and keeping up with normal course notes?

Heh, yeah, that's what I read on here that pretty much scared me into using it for M1. 😉

Same here 🙂

In all honesty I would say gunner is not worth it for the effort in time. You're better off using something kaplan comrepehensive if you're willing to spend that kind of time. I honestly wish I had used it sooner.

I plan to use gunner after I finish step 1 - mostly to make sure I remember it for all the pimp questions during 4th year. I think its use is great for rapid recall but not really as a way to understand.

As an MS1 I don't know this for sure, but I'd be willing to wager that answering pimp questions correctly is way more important during 3rd year than 4th year (due to grading and residency app timing).

 

[Blue Spoon]

I am an MS2 that has used GT/FC since I started classes. Since the beginning of second year it has been increasingly difficult to keep up with it, that said I am working through USMLERx (about 30 questions per day) in addition to it. Whether this is the most efficient use of my time remains to be determined.

I am also curious how others using FC are utilizing QBanks.

 

[notbobtrustme]

I think I'm going to have to ditch FC for the Taus Method. I got did nothing - zero - zilch over Thanksgiving break and nothing so far over winter break. Oops.

IMO, that's too short an interval to judge FC by. Unfortunately, it's tough to make that committment without going balls deep, which is how they get you I guess. Trying it out over a few weeks scratches the surface of what FC brings to the table.

 

[surag]

Is it common for DO's to take the USMLE in their third year? Why not take it with the COMLEX at the end of 2nd year? Just curious.

No- but then very few DO take the exam. Out of 200 we had maybe 20-30 take it and only 1 maybe 2 scored over 240. I'm shooting for the highest I can. We dont cover in detail a lot of the stuff MD programs do- mol bio, genetics, etc. And having not taken biochem in ug and even with a good grade in med school it was difficult for me. I barely rememberd any of it. The vast majority who have taken it and done well had extensive experience prior- ex phys major/post bac programs. I was a comp. neuroscience major so I never covered these subjects. Its a lot of self learning for me.

 

[surag]

That's the stupidest thing I've read on SDN.

Ad hominem attacks are wonderfully useless. You've taken my statement out of context. I forgot to include "only" as in medical knowlege is not hte only thing that separates...

Of course, if you used some reading comprehension and context you would understand this is what I meant. I stand by what I said fully. Yes we have unique knowledge- but whatever we know is very limited compared to what we've been taught. Do you really think that your UG education is what separates you from the guy who only went to high school? If so then why does the rest of hte world allow tsudents into med school right away? The same applies to med school. While our knowledge is essential (unlike UG obviously) to being a doctor- its not like those 4 years are essential. Its just another road block to weed students even more and to maintain a certain standard.

I dont know what year you are- but as a third year I can tell you i barely remember anything in my anatomy class other than the stench of cadavers, formalin, and waking up at 6 am everyday for a 7 class that I hated.

 

[surag]

I am an MS2 that has used GT/FC since I started classes. Since the beginning of second year it has been increasingly difficult to keep up with it, that said I am working through USMLERx (about 30 questions per day) in addition to it. Whether this is the most efficient use of my time remains to be determined.

I am also curious how others using FC are utilizing QBanks.

One thing I'd say is your time is valuable. If its not working, quite while you're still ahead- switch to something else entirely.

 

[surag]

IMO, that's too short an interval to judge FC by. Unfortunately, it's tough to make that committment without going balls deep, which is how they get you I guess. Trying it out over a few weeks scratches the surface of what FC brings to the table.

I agree- the commitment is intense but whatever it "brings to the table" is far outweighed by the time commitment. if the material covered were actually all comprehensive- then focusing on FC would make sense- but that time commitment is so intense that it makes it hard to focus on other higher yield material that on its own would be far more beneficial.

 

[ulikedaggers]

I agree- the commitment is intense but whatever it "brings to the table" is far outweighed by the time commitment. if the material covered were actually all comprehensive- then focusing on FC would make sense- but that time commitment is so intense that it makes it hard to focus on other higher yield material that on its own would be far more beneficial.

In my experience with FC so far the vast majority is straight out of FA (I think we all agree FA is all HY?), so why is focusing on FC any different than reading through FA in terms of time commitment?

 

[notbobtrustme]

I agree- the commitment is intense but whatever it "brings to the table" is far outweighed by the time commitment. if the material covered were actually all comprehensive- then focusing on FC would make sense- but that time commitment is so intense that it makes it hard to focus on other higher yield material that on its own would be far more beneficial.

FC is as high yield or low yield as you want it to be. Like others have said, it's review books in flash card format. Like any source, it will have a combination of high yield and low yield material. You can tag only the pharm/physio/pathology on FC and make a high yield deck or you can tag anatomy/histo/embryo and make a low yield deck.

It may not be 100% comprehensive, but nothing is. First Aid gets you about 80% of the way there but it'll be missing key facts/concepts from a number of systems. That doesn't mean FA is useless, it's just that you have to shore up the gaps with qbanks and other review books. Even Pathoma isn't 100% comprehensive on pathology, which is why you need to supplement it with qbanks and review books. FC works for the vast majority of content because it pulls information from a variety of review books. I've seen passages that are very similar to the content in RR-Pathology, BRS Physiology and FA in FC cards.

 

[addy]

I am an MS2 that has used GT/FC since I started classes. Since the beginning of second year it has been increasingly difficult to keep up with it, that said I am working through USMLERx (about 30 questions per day) in addition to it. Whether this is the most efficient use of my time remains to be determined.

I am also curious how others using FC are utilizing QBanks.

Can we please, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, stop talking about if FC is worth it or not? This thread is for people who are ACTUALLY ENROLLED in it. If you want to debate the validity of the system, take that elsewhere, please.

Also, I too am curious as to how other FC users are utilizing QBanks...I was hoping to do Kaplan's Qbank as well as USMLERx this year (2nd year technically just started 2 days ago for us)

 

[madchemist89]

I am on a system-based curriculum, so I work Qbanks (Kaplan and Rx) before our end of module exam.

 

[Bancrofti]

I am an MS2 that has used GT/FC since I started classes. Since the beginning of second year it has been increasingly difficult to keep up with it, that said I am working through USMLERx (about 30 questions per day) in addition to it. Whether this is the most efficient use of my time remains to be determined.

I am also curious how others using FC are utilizing QBanks.

I used a Kaplan qbank only to review the relevant systems for pathology and micro during my 1st term of MS2. I definitely didn't keep up with my plan, but I also chose to have somewhat of a life while I could and could have much better commitment.

I have Kaplan and Rx and would like to finish both at least once before March-April when I want to move on to UWorld on random. I want to say that if it is too difficult to pack everything in to my schedule then I will forego FC, but it's a tough decision. Many people from the Step I experiences thread had good things to say and many of them actually stopped using it before dedicated study time. However, some actually that did well said that if they had to change anything they would have stuck with it. Obviously we all know what the minimum criteria is to have success on step I, but it seems that people say for those few questions you have that are random, FC can be ar eview source that boosts you from having a "good score" to a "great score" since you'll have been exposed to so many minute detail questions that other people wouldn't focus on.

Uworld is my priority though without question so if I feel that I can't maintain FC, First Aid, and Uworld/Review by the time April comes then I think I know what my decision will have to be.

 

[Apoplexy__]

Also, I too am curious as to how other FC users are utilizing QBanks...

Well, I said earlier in this thread that my plan was to transition from FC to UWorld+FA or Taus method in March, but massive pressure from my classmates and school really scared me into starting now. I figure I'd rather get more reps/mastery of UWorld+FA than do more FC. So basically I'm only going to use FC to prepare for tests in school, and have now fully switched board prep efforts to UWorld+FA.

The decision was made in part by the fact that Semester 3 was basically entirely me using FC only to review the things in each block only, then hardly touching the stuff after that block or in previous blocks. Obviously that's not how FC is meant to be used and it's not how I wanted, but it just worked out like that...so I'm giving up on fixing that and making it now my FC/QBank compromise.

 

[AnalisCanalis]

Ad hominem attacks are wonderfully useless. You've taken my statement out of context. I forgot to include "only" as in medical knowlege is not hte only thing that separates...

Of course, if you used some reading comprehension and context you would understand this is what I meant. I stand by what I said fully. Yes we have unique knowledge- but whatever we know is very limited compared to what we've been taught. Do you really think that your UG education is what separates you from the guy who only went to high school? If so then why does the rest of hte world allow tsudents into med school right away? The same applies to med school. While our knowledge is essential (unlike UG obviously) to being a doctor- its not like those 4 years are essential. Its just another road block to weed students even more and to maintain a certain standard.

I dont know what year you are- but as a third year I can tell you i barely remember anything in my anatomy class other than the stench of cadavers, formalin, and waking up at 6 am everyday for a 7 class that I hated.

I stand by what i said as well. I personally think that the undergraduate education requirements in the US are worthless. It's not beneficial for the students, and it's certainly not beneficial to society as a whole. The reason the rest of the world spends their resources teaching medicine to future doctors is because it's the sensible thing to do.

 

[sanj238]

I stand by what i said as well. I personally think that the undergraduate education requirements in the US are worthless. It's not beneficial for the students, and it's certainly not beneficial to society as a whole. The reason the rest of the world spends their resources teaching medicine to future doctors is because it's the sensible thing to do.

No, its not. The reason why the rest of the world does this is because they piggy back on the US. The vast majority of the discoveries in medicine in the past 100 years are overwhelminingly from the USA with a few from europe and Japan. This is predominantly due to MDs going to undergraduate and coming up with a solid education in the sciences that enables them to contribute to basic and clinical sciences unlike the rest of the world.

Then the rest of the world uses what we create and brags about how their socialist crap economies are an amazeballs place to live and die. Please.

 

[Bancrofti]

Actually it seems like you got off on the wrong side of the bed.

I never maintained that FA was ta comprehensive source. Actually I'm pretty positive if you gave Joe Average FA and asked him to memorize everything and Joe Average had the minimum IQ to be a doctor then Joe Average is fairly qualified. This assumes he spent adequate time on FA. And no 2 months time is not enough. Give him a year plust UWorld and yes.

Medical knowledge is not what separates medical doctors from the layperson. If that were the case then we would all start med school after high school- like most of the world. Instead, in the US, medicine is understood to be a privilege that requires dedication and hardwork. Both of which are tested by the years necessary in UG to get through into med school. There is also the acumen component- hence the MCAT.

There are sources out there that when taken together are comprehensive enough to ace the USMLE and provide you with adequate knowledge to start off well as a doctor- Kaplan comprehensive+ high yield anatomy+ usmleroadmap anatomy+ high yield mol bio + FA + pathoma+ goljan path+ UWorld

Make what you will of the rigor of that but those are all review sources and a combination of them is fine- and really Kaplan comprehensive on its own is just fine plus qbanks to gain repetition.

I think you are fooling yourself if you think the material "taught" in med school is what separates you or anyone from the general public. that material you learn you will barely remember at the end of each year. By fourth year the only material you will retain is whatever you've managed to keep up with for your USMLE studies. FC will help with that - assuming people start early with it.

Most people actually do see FC is a primary learning tool. In fact a lot of people purchase it during usmle prep at the start of second year hoping to use it throughout. In fact, FC primarily advertises itself as a USMLE prep tool- in its advertisements and so forth. maybe its changing now- but it was exactly advertised as such a year ago.

Furthermore- FC is a pointless tool to use if you intend to continue with it for 2 years. Whatever material you memorize can easily be reviewed understood and retained with repetition at the start of your second year with other sources like Kaplan comprehensive that offer a better way to learn- understand the material deeply- apply it to concepts NOT in FC or FA and profit long term. Whereas FC for two years will make you very good at regurgitating facts from FC and no guarantee that material will help u understand concepts long term.

If you think using it in conjunction with say your renal physio is beneficial realize that the physiology in FC is so limited you might as well not bother with it since so many key concepts are skipped by it and whatever you learned in renal physio during school will simply be lost since its neither covered nor explained in FC. Go ahead and open your brs physio book and read the renal chapter- then compare it with what you learned in FC.

The idea of spaced learning is excellent. its precisely what I am using except with kaplan comprehensive and self maintained. The problem with FC spaced learning is that you are retaining only FC facts as opposed to synthesizing concepts.

Finally, the idea that if the material is not on the exam is superflous is stupid. USMLE has a pdf that includes in broad and specific headings everything you need to cover. So just because its not tested on your test doesnt mean its extraneous. It just wasnt tested that day. so "by definition" whats extraneous is whats not covered by those topics. Nothing like a strawman argument.

Finally, you've missed my point. FC has material- im not saying its not testable. I'm saying they've chosen material at the expense of more HIGH YIELD material they should HAVE included. How do I know? By doing UWorld, USMLERX, and Kaplan qbanks. So please, do tell me why they included material on Binswanger's but conveniently ignored Homer Rosette pseudorosettes for brain cancer when it is far more high yield (on 2 of the qbanks and in two high yield path resources- brs and goljan)?

The issue here is not just content- but the amount of time- exceptional time- needed to cover FC yet not having its comprehensiveness be commensurate with the time involved to learn

As far as the out of the bed thing, no. The thread is clearly used by people who currently use the program and people inquiring about its benefits. Your posts are equivalent to walking into a Catholic church and telling everyone you're Jewish and how their beliefs are wrong... it's like you're trying to start an issue for no reason. You haven't even taken the step yet, otherwise your posts actually come off as someone who took the step, prepped with FC and did poorly. I think every smart student knows what works for them and what doesn't. Because you have found something you feel works for you doesn't mean other things don't work for others. I'm glad you think you found a system that's perfect, I wish you the best with it.

Regarding your other comments:
- the Average Joe post was meant to emphasize the point that review sources are not meant to teach you the material. Hence why I used first aid as an example. It is obviously heralded as the #1 review source for the step. If 1st aid was thorough and taught you material, then it's all you would need for the step, since you'd be learning from it... but you clearly can't solely use first aid and be confident with passing. You need to have a background first or annotate it with relevant information about the things you don't know. Likewise, FC is the same. I'm not saying it's a better use of time than FA, but it covers a large majority of the material as well in a unique format that works for people. If there are things you don't find high yield... don't flag it. If there are things you think are missing that are very high yield, you can create your own topic. I'm not sure what the issue is. Further, you then go on to quote all these sources that most would say to be excessive. Your issue may be that you didn't take enough away from your classes in basic sciences and that is why you feel the need to use materials that hit every single point.

- most of your other comments seem to deal with the efficacy of FC as a step prep tool. Clearly, someone could not truly benefit from it if they were to start now and intended to take the step in May. This could be considered a marketing issue by FC, but again, you get a free trial and anyone with a brain would look to see what people say about the program before starting. It also depends on the person and their personality/study methodology of the student. I like FC, but there are some people I would never recommend it to and others who I think it would be perfect for.

- I remember a lot from my Anatomy course (though I did also end up leading a study group for it afterwards) and every course during first year. I came into medical school with mindset that everything is relevant and it would be in my best interest to remember as much as I can. You kind of come off as wanting to do the bare minimum or at least whatever it is will get you to your results quickest. There isn't a doubt in my mind that I could score a 230+ on the step using solely first aid and qbanks. There is nothing wrong with that, but that is not personally my own standard.

- I like FC and as such I use it. I also acknowledge that at some point in the near future its utility will take a dip and I may have to give it up in favor of my other plans. I have complained myself about some of the things the program is missing and issues with the features online. However, many of your comments about how useful it is are incorrect, especially considering your explanation of why you feel that way. Lastly, it literally makes no sense that you post in a thread full of the people that use the product, saying it doesn't work. If you wanted to dissuade people from using it, you should have created your own thread giving your review of the program and your reasons as to why students' time would be better spent elsewhere.

Sorry for the long-winded reply. That was my last one I promise 🙂

 

[AnalisCanalis]

No, its not. The reason why the rest of the world does this is because they piggy back on the US. The vast majority of the discoveries in medicine in the past 100 years are overwhelminingly from the USA with a few from europe and Japan. This is predominantly due to MDs going to undergraduate and coming up with a solid education in the sciences that enables them to contribute to basic and clinical sciences unlike the rest of the world.

Then the rest of the world uses what we create and brags about how their socialist crap economies are an amazeballs place to live and die. Please.

Yes, because a solid foundation in literature and arts is going to make me a better scientist.

 

[addy]

As far as the out of the bed thing, no. The thread is clearly used by people who currently use the program and people inquiring about its benefits. Your posts are equivalent to walking into a Catholic church and telling everyone you're Jewish and how their beliefs are wrong... it's like you're trying to start an issue for no reason. You haven't even taken the step yet, otherwise your posts actually come off as someone who took the step, prepped with FC and did poorly. I think every smart student knows what works for them and what doesn't. Because you have found something you feel works for you doesn't mean other things don't work for others. I'm glad you think you found a system that's perfect, I wish you the best with it.
...
Sorry for the long-winded reply. That was my last one I promise 🙂

Yes, because a solid foundation in literature and arts is going to make med a better scientist.

Stop fueling the fire. Just ignore him and the problem will be solved....just like my father. 🙁

 

[Fox800]

IMO, that's too short an interval to judge FC by. Unfortunately, it's tough to make that committment without going balls deep, which is how they get you I guess. Trying it out over a few weeks scratches the surface of what FC brings to the table.

I've been using it since day 1 of MS2 (5.5 months), so I think I can judge it fairly well. It would have been great to start with MS1, but at this point it's too much to try to finish.

 

[notbobtrustme]

I've been using it since day 1 of MS2 (5.5 months), so I think I can judge it fairly well. It would have been great to start with MS1, but at this point it's too much to try to finish.

ya, that's the other problem with this program, you need like 3 months to get a rolling start. I'm sure some super gunner could flag 50 cards a day and get it all banked by April before their dedicated study starts, but for the rest of us mere mortals, that's a pipe dream.

 

[ulikedaggers]

Question about FC Endocrine.

It says that the Vitamin D receptor is in the cytosol. My teacher (and also literature) says that the VitD receptor is principally located in the nucleus. Is FC just flatout wrong?

• Cytosolic: Vitamin D, Estrogen, Testosterone, Cortisol, Aldosterone, Progesterone. Remember VET CAP
  

 

[mcloaf]

Question about FC Endocrine.

It says that the Vitamin D receptor is in the cytosol. My teacher (and also literature) says that the VitD receptor is principally located in the nucleus. Is FC just flatout wrong?

There's definitely support in the literature for unliganded, monomeric VitD receptor being in the cytosol, and then heterodimerizing with the RxR before localizing to the nucleus and exerting its effects.

http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy.l...sony+J.+(1999)+J.+Biol.+Chem.+274:19352–19360.

http://www.jbc.org/content/275/52/41114.full


These papers are old though, so maybe there are newer data that disagree? Might be worth asking your professor about. Maybe others here know more; I just looked this stuff up as we haven't done endocrine yet and only covered steroid receptors in passing during our intro biochem/mol bio course.

 

[ulikedaggers]

Yeah we only briefly (not really at all) mentioned it in biochem and now molecular bio as well. It's not a big deal right now and I'm sure we'll learn it more in endocrine.

 

[sanj238]

Yeah we only briefly (not really at all) mentioned it in biochem and now molecular bio as well. It's not a big deal right now and I'm sure we'll learn it more in endocrine.

Vitamin D works via a zinc finger mechanism on vitamin D receptors found in the cytosol. The mechanism of action is such that the zinc fingers found on vitamin D with sulfur linkages allow it to enter the cell and bind to the receptor. Binding then allows it to enter the nucleus and act on the promoter region to enhance transcription and then translation of a protein called calbindin. Calbindin is responsible for enhanced Ca absorption in the intestines.

Vitamin D or calcitriol receptors are part of a class of receptors called hormone response receptors. These receptors enter the nucleus (usually) and then bind to parts of DNA called hormone response elements that are responsible for activating RNA polyermase dependent transcription.

Calcitriol receptors are also known as Vitamin D Receptors.

The inactivated receptor of Vitamin D is located in the cytoplasm.

I'm pulling this straight from memory- so while I could be wrong I don't think so.

So the context matters. Receptor locatoin: cytosol. Receptor action: nucleus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16690532 - to confirm

 

[ulikedaggers]

Vitamin D works via a zinc finger mechanism on vitamin D receptors found in the cytosol. The mechanism of action is such that the zinc fingers found on vitamin D with sulfur linkages allow it to enter the cell and bind to the receptor. Binding then allows it to enter the nucleus and act on the promoter region to enhance transcription and then translation of a protein called calbindin. Calbindin is responsible for enhanced Ca absorption in the intestines.

Vitamin D or calcitriol receptors are part of a class of receptors called hormone response receptors. These receptors enter the nucleus (usually) and then bind to parts of DNA called hormone response elements that are responsible for activating RNA polyermase dependent transcription.

Calcitriol receptors are also known as Vitamin D Receptors.

The inactivated receptor of Vitamin D is located in the cytoplasm.

I'm pulling this straight from memory- so while I could be wrong I don't think so.

So the context matters. Receptor locatoin: cytosol. Receptor action: nucleus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16690532 - to confirm

Right, that's essentially how all the steroid hormones work (except T3/T4 and VitA derivatives).. which is what I thought. I guess I'll just memorize it wrong for class then relearn it correctly later when it matters.

Thanks.

 

[mcloaf]

I guess I'll just memorize it wrong for class then relearn it correctly later when it matters.

Gotta love that feeling.