- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 0
Which one would be better worth my time?
Goljan RR path vs. BRS Path
- Thread starter bhs_runner
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 171
- Reaction score
- 0
If you have some guts to stray from what every other medical student uses and want to use the better book, then use Goljan Rapid Review. It is much more concept-oriented, more integrative, and has more useful pictures than BRS. However, the font is uglier.
If you combine RR with Goljan's audio lectures you will have a solid foundation.
Either book will be fine though - people have broken 260 using either one.
If you combine RR with Goljan's audio lectures you will have a solid foundation.
Either book will be fine though - people have broken 260 using either one.
bhs_runner said:
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Messages
- 307
- Reaction score
- 2
I think both of them are wortwhile resources, and i think the appropriate resource depends on your individual learning style.
BRS path - people have blown away the boards using this as their path study resource. BUT, many of the people who did this also used it in their class and others have claimed to memorize it. I don't think it's as "enjoyable" to read as RR Path, but in fairness, i didn't really give it a chance because it was too many facts for me.
RR path - people have also blown away the boards using this. This is what i'm using and it took my path knowledge from abysmal to pretty good. What i will say, though, is that i believe RR alone isn't as good as if you listne to Goljan's lectures along with RR and make annotations (he leaves plenty of space for this).
When all is said and done, they are both 'adequate' resources for the step exam. My feelings are that BRS is more for the person who really knows path and wants to refresh it. RR on the other hand, has a pretty big pathophys component (esp. when used with Goljan's lectures... it follows almost right along) and i think does a pretty good job at teaching even the 'lay' pathology student.
For me, i much prefer RR path. I listened for 7 days straight, almost 10 hours a day to goljan along with RR path. I found it much easier to get the motivation because i like the dynamic aspect of dr. goljan and like the integrations he makes because it refreshes other subject areas.
-kir
BRS path - people have blown away the boards using this as their path study resource. BUT, many of the people who did this also used it in their class and others have claimed to memorize it. I don't think it's as "enjoyable" to read as RR Path, but in fairness, i didn't really give it a chance because it was too many facts for me.
RR path - people have also blown away the boards using this. This is what i'm using and it took my path knowledge from abysmal to pretty good. What i will say, though, is that i believe RR alone isn't as good as if you listne to Goljan's lectures along with RR and make annotations (he leaves plenty of space for this).
When all is said and done, they are both 'adequate' resources for the step exam. My feelings are that BRS is more for the person who really knows path and wants to refresh it. RR on the other hand, has a pretty big pathophys component (esp. when used with Goljan's lectures... it follows almost right along) and i think does a pretty good job at teaching even the 'lay' pathology student.
For me, i much prefer RR path. I listened for 7 days straight, almost 10 hours a day to goljan along with RR path. I found it much easier to get the motivation because i like the dynamic aspect of dr. goljan and like the integrations he makes because it refreshes other subject areas.
-kir
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Messages
- 307
- Reaction score
- 2
heh, i thought i was alone for hating that font... guess not.nrosigh said:
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 0
nrosigh said:
Did you listen to the lectures as you were going through the book? I have already listened to the lectures once (and I am working on a second time).
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 6
Haven't taken the test yet, but RR + the audio seems to really hit home the concepts. I'm twice thru the book, almost 3x thru the audio, and all the system-to-system connections he makes really reinforce the big picture.bhs_runner said:
I listened to the lectures first (intently), then read the book, and am doing both at the same time now. ...seems to stick better having him say it first...with all his eccentricities.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2005
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with the above posters. Goljan's RR is quite a masterpiece (and I love the font). He's actually integrated board questions into the text. On the audio you hear him say so-and-so was a board question, and you look down and it's given in bold right there in the text. He leaves lots of space to add your own little notes here and there. A really excellent book. Will totally replace BRS in the years to come.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 0
I ditched BRS once i got RR. Dr. Goljan rocks my world. his lectures follow his book really really well, and i take all my lecture notes in there. you don't have to write as much since it's all in there. charts are awesome. comes with a CD full of questions too.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2003
- Messages
- 2,062
- Reaction score
- 1
I just took Step 1 today....for my exam, BRS Path has a high "sensitity" on what material I got in the test....as for "Specificity", I'm sure that's not high for any book out there. BRS Path is good, but very condensed though...there are sometimes not enough descriptions either. Like you'll remember things like "Parkinson's" and "Lewy Bodies", but you may not recognize the description of Lewy Bodies though.
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 0
DrPak said:
Are the audio lectures that you are talking about the ones you can purchase off of ebay that people who have taken his review course have recorded?
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 2
for anyone who has him as at OSU and already has the new edition RR, How much better is it over the old edition? Did he change alot/anything? Does it follow the recordings any better? Thanks
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2002
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 0
This is going to sound repetitive, but I like the RR layout MUCH better. I have both books and wasn't impressed by the endless outline that is BRS. RR is much easier to read with more pictures, tables, etc.
That said, anyone that says you can get a 260 just reading either of these books is naive. Having just finished Step 1 a few hours ago, I can say that very little of either book is really on it.
Honest opinion is that I saw more direct questions from Goljan's RR BIOCHEM than Path! And Step-up is a life saver. My caveat is that I have no idea how I scored since a lot of questions seemed to be designed more for reasoning through new information (ala MCAT) than memorizing facts.
Know Step-up and Goljan's audio lectures cold. Then add all your information learned from Qbank's 2000 Step 1 questions into Step-up and memorize that as well. Finish it off with some supplemental Biochem and Phys (renal and cardio) and you're as prepared as anyone IMHO.
That said, anyone that says you can get a 260 just reading either of these books is naive. Having just finished Step 1 a few hours ago, I can say that very little of either book is really on it.
Honest opinion is that I saw more direct questions from Goljan's RR BIOCHEM than Path! And Step-up is a life saver. My caveat is that I have no idea how I scored since a lot of questions seemed to be designed more for reasoning through new information (ala MCAT) than memorizing facts.
Know Step-up and Goljan's audio lectures cold. Then add all your information learned from Qbank's 2000 Step 1 questions into Step-up and memorize that as well. Finish it off with some supplemental Biochem and Phys (renal and cardio) and you're as prepared as anyone IMHO.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2003
- Messages
- 7,684
- Reaction score
- 6
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
i love goljan and all, but that cover design makes it look like a qbasic book from 1985.OSUdoc08 said:
