for anyone undecided b/w goljan RR v. brs path

[Ramoray]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Well i just wanted to post with info i have found over my board study and to let people know who are undecided on which path book to use. I want to say i think both books are good books but the thing is they are very different in the information they wish to emphasize making them almost like reading 2 diff books. I have been reading robbins brs and RR and i can say BRS is much more complete as far as containing info that is in robbins. However RR has some great clinical info that brs doesnt have. I would highly highly recomend reading through brs AND rr for boards. IT hardly takes any extra time, maybe an extra 30 mins per chapter.. read chap 1 brs, follwed by 1 rr etc. I found they complement each other nicely.
However if you only pick 1, i would highly choose brs over rr. Brs is just much more complete and RR lacks a huge amt of detail, so much so i believe its completely inadequate prep on its own. Now people who are just using it may disagree but i will tell you that anyone who is just using rr has a good background knowledge and then it is ok to review but if you are at all weak or dont remember much BRS at a minimum and preferably both. I was really disapointed in RR after all the hype. Now im sure many will disagree but this is coming from info comparing the depth of big robbins as a comparison and hands down BRS has more of the imp info from robbins than does rr, like i said rr does have some good clnicials that is in neither robbins or brs so do both!

 

[streetdoc]

Well i just wanted to post with info i have found over my board study and to let people know who are undecided on which path book to use. I want to say i think both books are good books but the thing is they are very different in the information they wish to emphasize making them almost like reading 2 diff books. I have been reading robbins brs and RR and i can say BRS is much more complete as far as containing info that is in robbins. However RR has some great clinical info that brs doesnt have. I would highly highly recomend reading through brs AND rr for boards. IT hardly takes any extra time, maybe an extra 30 mins per chapter.. read chap 1 brs, follwed by 1 rr etc. I found they complement each other nicely.
However if you only pick 1, i would highly choose brs over rr. Brs is just much more complete and RR lacks a huge amt of detail, so much so i believe its completely inadequate prep on its own. Now people who are just using it may disagree but i will tell you that anyone who is just using rr has a good background knowledge and then it is ok to review but if you are at all weak or dont remember much BRS at a minimum and preferably both. I was really disapointed in RR after all the hype. Now im sure many will disagree but this is coming from info comparing the depth of big robbins as a comparison and hands down BRS has more of the imp info from robbins than does rr, like i said rr does have some good clnicials that is in neither robbins or brs so do both!

thanks for the info! curious if you have taken step 1 yet? i was thinking what you said said, but was also thinking that maybe those "details" are not required for the boards...i didn't see them on my path shelf (used RR). i understand where you are coming from as a study tool, but what about the board questions...thanks
streetdoc

 

[NIQ]

Great info. I'm primarily using BRS right now since I used it as a review book during the school year. Will take a look at RR though

 

[automaton]

i had a similar opinion before taking the NBME, but since changed my advice. i don't blame you for your assessment, as it's an understandable view, but i really do think that the usmle emphasizes certain bread and butter path and especially pathophys, and de-emphasizes random path factoids. in my opinion BRS is full of low yield zebras and unused buzzwords. i think rapid review is slightly better. i used BRS during the school year, rapid review during boards studying. i do not recommend using both. i agree that BRS and rapid review complement each other well, filling in gaps that each other leave, but in my opinion, these aren't really critical facts that one should worry about. anyway, that's what i decided after taking NBME, and my advice hasn't really changed since taking step1.

the highest yield path is general path and systems pathophys. random eponyms with an incidence of 1 per million are over-represented in BRS.

 

[streetdoc]

i had a similar opinion before taking the NBME, but since changed my advice. i don't blame you for your assessment, as it's an understandable view, but i really do think that the usmle emphasizes certain bread and butter path and especially pathophys, and de-emphasizes random path factoids. in my opinion BRS is full of low yield zebras and unused buzzwords. i think rapid review is slightly better. i used BRS during the school year, rapid review during boards studying. i do not recommend using both. i agree that BRS and rapid review complement each other well, filling in gaps that each other leave, but in my opinion, these aren't really critical facts that one should worry about. anyway, that's what i decided after taking NBME, and my advice hasn't really changed since taking step1.

the highest yield path is general path and systems pathophys. random eponyms with an incidence of 1 per million are over-represented in BRS.

thanks automaton.
that's what i was thinking before the shelf and that's what i saw on the shelf...good to know the real deal is similar. i l;oved brs for class, but i'm thinking it's not the way to go for boards. which makes perfect sense since Goljan lectures for the boards. he should know what is high yield.
thanks...any one else have thoughts/opinions?
streetdoc

 

[DHMO]

Just to add my two cents. . .
I agree that there is more info in BRS, but I found it hard to make anything of the info presented unless you already had a good grasp of the material. I found that RR was much more conceptually based, and easier to learn something from it, but it took me a lot longer to get through each of the chapters.
If I were to start 2nd year over again, this is how I would study for path: 1) read RR very slowly to get a good understanding of the material (not necessarily the details). 2) Listen to Goljan audio to reinforce. 3) read BRS to get all of the details down after you already understand the concepts well. 4) do the questions in Robbins review. That's how I studied for the path shelf and I killed it.

 

[46&2]

I would also choose Rapid Review over BRS for shelf exams. While I think the initial chapters of BRS over general pathology are better, RR does much better in integrating other disciplines (biochem, physio, microbio) and clinical findings when it comes to organ systems. Also, RR tends to emphasize certain things better, such as the biochemical pathway in killing bacteria (NADPH oxidase, myeloperoxidase, etc.). BRS puts a key by important topics, but you wind up being keyed to death.

I was trying to annotate in both of them, and found that I had to add more stuff to BRS from RR. BRS has more of the 'classical' or old school path in it so it might be better for course work. It does cover more diseases, but not in depth enough to be really helpful. One sentence on a particular tumor ain't gonna cut it.

It's also important to *read* RR correctly. Reading it or BRS straight up is boring as hell. I used the clinical findings and tred to setup a question in my head (i.e. patient has thrombocytopenia, eczema, and lots of infections... what's the disease? what's the inheritence? etc.).

BRS has decent questions but sometimes they're picky minutae; RR has superior questions in a more clinical format, but that's not the strength of either book.

RR, the Golijan audio, Q bank, and Robbins Review of Path (the Q&A book) were my primary sources for the path shelf and I managed a 97-98% (don't know the raw score). Did a chapter out of RR, then did a chapter of Robbins Qs. I read BRS as well, and though I thought it was helpful, I would definitely choose RR over it. That said, I also kept up with course work and read respective chapers of Robbins for whatever system we were studying (I didn't ace my path class by any means). It's interesting, too, how some parts of Robbins and RR are really very comparable.

Haven't taken Step I yet, though, keepin' me fingers crossed...

 

[HiddenTruth]

ok, so i have a question, now that u all are bringin out this RR all of a sudden. I ditched it initially (at the book store), because the ch. didn't look that great. I ended up doing stars, which is his older book before RR, but it's much more complete, i felt. So, I annotated everything from stars into BRS, or vice versa for some ch. I've done these books in quite a bit of detail, and feel like i have a good grasp, but just ave to hit it a few more times. So, would u guys reccommend reading RR also as i go through and re-review through BRS with all my stars annotations, or should i not do that and just foccus on knowing all this cold? I guess i shoudl reall scan through RR and see how much difft it is from the stars. But, yea i def. agree that there's certain stuff in his material that's not in BRS, and just the way it's presented, like RBC path--sheesh BRS BLOWS! Likewise, cardiac blew in brs i felt. Anyways, would appreciate some feedback. Thanks.

 

[automaton]

i'd stick with your marked up book. i didn't mean to imply that rapid review is a great book or anything. i just think it's better than BRS. if you did all that work of annotating BRS, by all means use that instead.

 

[tufts02]

what do you guys think about reviewing only the goljan 500 page notes? i don't know how this compares to the RR. I annotated the 500 pager as I was listening to his lectures and was hoping just to review these notes and his HY notes in one week. Is this overzealous or should I be spending my time in another way? any help would be greatly appreciated

thanks

 

[Dire Straits]

what do you guys think about reviewing only the goljan 500 page notes? i don't know how this compares to the RR. I annotated the 500 pager as I was listening to his lectures and was hoping just to review these notes and his HY notes in one week. Is this overzealous or should I be spending my time in another way? any help would be greatly appreciated

thanks

i was thinking the exact same thing. is there much in his RR book that is not covered in his 500 page lecture notes?

 

[bulldog]

can anyone elaborate what you mean by brs having more info that rr? i have both and it seems that rr has more stuff. i.e. heart, hemepath, etc. thing w/ rr is that there seems to be a bunch of random facts--making it hard to learn. on the other hand, brs flows pretty smoothly...though i have a problem where i'd read brs and just glaze through it since i "think" i know the info...but i don't. that said, will stick w/ brs.