Step I Goljan notes vs Rapid Review

[gotrumpet]

When people refer to Goljan's notes, do they mean the Rapid Review Goljan book? Or are these notes that you get with his lectures? If so,

Where can we get these notes?

Thanks

 

[kito]

People are likely to disagree with me but I think the notes are a better companion to the audio, which is excellent. The notes have more clinical correlations, more charts and more specific information than the review book. I took a look at both before I decided to use the notes, which I then went on to read from cover to cover. You can't go wrong with either, but I feel like the notes better follow the flow of the audio, and it bears more references from the audio.

 

[Pollicis]

But you won't get to hear Goljan's jokes in the book! It's the only thing that keeps me awake.

 

[OSUdoc08]

The notes are often outdated, unorganized, and without images or practice questions, as opposed to RR.

 

[predodoc]

I recently decided I would compare the photocopied notes and the rapid review book. What I did was take one chapter and just see how they overlapped. I found that they had 99% of the same material. The book is better organized and is easier to read. It has Two tone coloring making it easier to read and the spacing is better. It seems like the he tries to condense the things in is RR book. For example, if he was listing things that cause some abnormal physiological condition, the photocopy notes might have all the same info but it might be spread out in different places throughout that particular page and not lumped all together as well. The book would have it more in order like : #1cause….#2 cause….ect.( more BRSish). Overall there is not too much difference except the book is easier to read and flows better. You will probably get the same info out of both though. Personally I wish the new book would come out now and not in like 3 months since Ill have to use photocopy notes in general path until it does.

 

[OSUdoc08]

I recently decided I would compare the photocopied notes and the rapid review book. What I did was take one chapter and just see how they overlapped. I found that they had 99% of the same material. The book is better organized and is easier to read. It has Two tone coloring making it easier to read and the spacing is better. It seems like the he tries to condense the things in is RR book. For example, if he was listing things that cause some abnormal physiological condition, the photocopy notes might have all the same info but it might be spread out in different places throughout that particular page and not lumped all together as well. The book would have it more in order like : #1cause….#2 cause….ect.( more BRSish). Overall there is not too much difference except the book is easier to read and flows better. You will probably get the same info out of both though. Personally I wish the new book would come out now and not in like 3 months since Ill have to use photocopy notes in general path until it does.

FINALLY, a rational post.

 

[JBHunt]

What are we comparing here? He has several Rapid Review series.
Are we comparing his RR Path (2004) or
RR usmle step 1 (2001)

 

[OSUdoc08]

What are we comparing here? He has several Rapid Review series.
Are we comparing his RR Path (2004) or
RR usmle step 1 (2001)

RR Path 2004.

Keep in mind a much improved RR Path 2006 is on the way.

 

[mountainman123]

RR Path 2004.

Keep in mind a much improved RR Path 2006 is on the way.

That really sucks seeing as how I just bought RR path 2004

 

[HunterGatherer]

RR path 2006 has 300 more pages than RR Path 2004. Hopefully they are all pics and test questions or it will be less digestable for Step 1 prep. RR 2004 already has a proven track record. I'll wait until a classmate gets 2006 to decide if I want to go with it. I want that espresso. 😉

 

[nasdr]

That really sucks seeing as how I just bought RR path 2004

I wouldn't say that buying RR 2004 was a waste. I'm guessing you're going to be starting as an MS2, in which case you have a solid path book to go alongside class notes. I went ahead and bought 2004 also; no point in waiting till December/January to buy 2006, when half of path is already over.