Goljan a frustrating read?

[njmedstudent87]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Is it just me or is goljan frustrating to read. I find the outline form to be very hard to follow. Nothing is highlighted and everything is the same font and size. Important points are hard to separate from the irrelevant ones...

I find BRS a much easier read. Should I stick with Goljan because? So many people swear by it that I feel compelled to read it.

 

[Guyton Killah]

Goljan is just overrated as much as first aid is. There's nothing special about his book which you wont find in other books. Better to stick to something which wont force you to cram crap you barely understand.

 

[wAyRadikull]

Goljan is NOT overrated by any means. That book has everything you need to know that will help well beyond the scope of step 1. Although, I do agree that it can be quite frustrating if its the only source you're reading. I read it along my classes (maybe left out 5 or so chapters), so it was an easier read.

I've heard from several people that reading RR after BRS is a good way to go since BRS provides the big-picture and RR fills in the necessary details. To me that sounds like a win-win situation.

 

[McGillGrad]

RR becomes more and more useful as you get comfortable with the information. If you are weak on path then it will seem more random but as you progress in your studying, you will learn to appreciate it more and more.

 

[Captopril]

Goljan is just overrated as much as first aid is.

:troll:

 

[Rabbit Hole]

Is it just me or is goljan frustrating to read. I find the outline form to be very hard to follow. Nothing is highlighted and everything is the same font and size. Important points are hard to separate from the irrelevant ones...

I find BRS a much easier read. Should I stick with Goljan because? So many people swear by it that I feel compelled to read it.

I also found that book very irritating to read for the same reasons. It just does not fit my style so it's a matter of personal preference. So instead of forcing myself to read RRpath, I'm reading BRSpath supplemented with G-audio and it's working out just fine.

I don't think Goljan is overrated at all.. I just rather prefer to listen to him talk than read his book.

 

[Torquer]

Is it just me or is goljan frustrating to read. I find the outline form to be very hard to follow. Nothing is highlighted and everything is the same font and size. Important points are hard to separate from the irrelevant ones...

I find BRS a much easier read. Should I stick with Goljan because? So many people swear by it that I feel compelled to read it.

I wouldnt call it a 'frustrating' read, but yes it takes a little getting used to. What helps me is first taking an overview of the topic im about to start.

Say, obstructive lung diseases -
1. Emphysema

a. xyz
b. abc

i. ghi
​

2. Chronic bronchitis

You know? read all the 'a b c's first, since they're the major sub-divisions of the topic like etiology, pathology, complications. and then dive into the 'i ii iii's which are minor sub-divs. once i have an idea of what im reading i can read more slowly and understand better.
Hope that helps!😉 and PS: goljan is so NOT overrated.

 

[mglavin]

Is it just me or is goljan frustrating to read. I find the outline form to be very hard to follow. Nothing is highlighted and everything is the same font and size. Important points are hard to separate from the irrelevant ones...

there are no irrelevant facts in RR

 

[username456789]

I made a post about how frustrating Goljan was about a month ago.

Over break I read through the Heart Dz section (since we had just done Cardio Pathophys during December) and it made a lot more sense and flowed much better.

It's still more frustrating than reading, say, BRS Phys (which is very easy to follow, but obviously not pathology) since nothing's really highlighted and even the outline is sometimes done poorly (fails to follow simple outline rules at times, so the organization is confusing).

But, overall, it's much more useful after you've really gone through the material in your course (I can't imagine trying to use Goljan as a primary text the first time through).

 

[McGillGrad]

The book is meant as a review. If you read it before even taking pathology then why are you complaining?

You are frustrated by your lack of knowledge, not the book.

I made a post about how frustrating Goljan was about a month ago.

Over break I read through the Heart Dz section (since we had just done Cardio Pathophys during December) and it made a lot more sense and flowed much better.

It's still more frustrating than reading, say, BRS Phys (which is very easy to follow, but obviously not pathology) since nothing's really highlighted and even the outline is sometimes done poorly (fails to follow simple outline rules at times, so the organization is confusing).

But, overall, it's much more useful after you've really gone through the material in your course (I can't imagine trying to use Goljan as a primary text the first time through).

 

[username456789]

The book is meant as a review. If you read it before even taking pathology then why are you complaining?

You are frustrated by your lack of knowledge, not the book.

No, I read it as I went. As in, after we discussed cardiomyopathies, I read through Goljan's section on that. But things don't sink in 100% the first time through in lecture, so a pass through Goljan shortly after a lecture on a given topic isn't particularly helpful. Goljan is really only helpful for me when I'm already at the point of feeling very comfortable with the material.

The format of the book contributes to its lack of utility as a book to read "as you go", and thus it becomes more of a "read right before/after exam at a time when most of the material should already be completely organized in your head" type book.

 

[McGillGrad]

No, I read it as I went. As in, after we discussed cardiomyopathies, I read through Goljan's section on that. But things don't sink in 100% the first time through in lecture, so a pass through Goljan shortly after a lecture on a given topic isn't particularly helpful. Goljan is really only helpful for me when I'm already at the point of feeling very comfortable with the material.

The format of the book contributes to its lack of utility as a book to read "as you go", and thus it becomes more of a "read right before/after exam at a time when most of the material should already be completely organized in your head" type book.

The title states "Rapid Review". It doesn't say it is a study tool. You cannot review if you do not know the material. Hearing a lecture on new material is not 'knowing' the material.

It is a review book. Your expectations of utility should stem from that. Not random expectations of 'magical properties' to teach you material that you only saw for the first time, that day.

 

[username456789]

The title states "Rapid Review".

Yes I've read the title. All I'm saying is, after reading countless posts saying "start reading Goljan from day one in path", this clearly has not turned out to be very useful advice. In addition, a few minor tweaks could be made to the overall format of the book. The information in it is great, but the structure of the outline often seems like a 6th grader devised it.

I don't have any specific examples, but it's usually something like this:

A. Disease name
---1. Males more than Females
---2. Three variations
------a. Based on [insert pathological variable]
------b. [Other random thought]
---3. First Variation
---4. Second Variation
---5. [Other random thought]
---6. Third Variation


The info's there and it's usually good, but following that kind of format, especially when you're trying to review RAPIDLY is not conducive to a great "flow." And I'm not talking about the fragmented sentences, that's fine. It's things like not having the three specific disease variations fall under the heading "Three variations."

Some might call this nitpicking, but it's a gross oversight as far as outlines go, and sometimes causes me to have to go back and re-read it unnecessarily to get the organized big picture. It's much more "stream-of-conscious" than other review books.

 

[McGillGrad]

You make some valid points, but this seems to be a case of 'personal preference' more than anything else.

Yes I've read the title. All I'm saying is, after reading countless posts saying "start reading Goljan from day one in path", this clearly has not turned out to be very useful advice. In addition, a few minor tweaks could be made to the overall format of the book. The information in it is great, but the structure of the outline often seems like a 6th grader devised it.

I don't have any specific examples, but it's usually something like this:

A. Disease name
---1. Males more than Females
---2. Three variations
------a. Based on [insert pathological variable]
------b. [Other random thought]
---3. First Variation
---4. Second Variation
---5. [Other random thought]
---6. Third Variation


The info's there and it's usually good, but following that kind of format, especially when you're trying to review RAPIDLY is not conducive to a great "flow." And I'm not talking about the fragmented sentences, that's fine. It's things like not having the three specific disease variations fall under the heading "Three variations."

Some might call this nitpicking, but it's a gross oversight as far as outlines go, and sometimes causes me to have to go back and re-read it unnecessarily to get the organized big picture. It's much more "stream-of-conscious" than other review books.

 

[username456789]

I will say that this book is growing on me. Obviously a great resource, and I'm forcing myself to become accustomed to the style.

I have a question: for people who have already taken Step I, how many times did you read through RR Path? I'm sure it's a little tough at times to quantify this exactly (since you don't always just sit down and read sequentially through, but rather review a chapter that's relevant to your coursework at the time). But if you had to guess roughly how many passes you made through the book's material? And certain chapters/subjects that you devoted more or less time to?

It really is a good book, and I'm trying to utilize it well, but there's just so much information it can get overwhelming at times. And that's without even focusing on most of the Micro boxes (e.g. listing all the different characteristics of all the different bacteria that can cause pneumonia, since it's in one ear out the other at this point as my micro has left my memory temporarily).

 

[vicinihil]

This is roughly my 3rd time through most of the chapters and I plan to go through it once if not two more times before the exam. I've skipped over some chapters like Nutrition but will definitely do it when I'm done with classes and just studying for the boards.

Anyone that has taken it; how many times did you get through the book?

 

[McGillGrad]

I managed to get through it a little over 2 times.

That is only during the review period.

I will say that this book is growing on me. Obviously a great resource, and I'm forcing myself to become accustomed to the style.

I have a question: for people who have already taken Step I, how many times did you read through RR Path? I'm sure it's a little tough at times to quantify this exactly (since you don't always just sit down and read sequentially through, but rather review a chapter that's relevant to your coursework at the time). But if you had to guess roughly how many passes you made through the book's material? And certain chapters/subjects that you devoted more or less time to?

It really is a good book, and I'm trying to utilize it well, but there's just so much information it can get overwhelming at times. And that's without even focusing on most of the Micro boxes (e.g. listing all the different characteristics of all the different bacteria that can cause pneumonia, since it's in one ear out the other at this point as my micro has left my memory temporarily).