I never used BB as it had only just started to come out when I had to take Step 1. But what I saw was definitely impressive. However, I thought BB wasn't strictly pathology (like Pathoma obviously is) but much more comprehensive. Are you guys saying BB does pathology better than even Pathoma? If so, that's great news.
I didn't really like pathoma that much - maybe the first 3 chapters were OK for the basic science stuff of inflammation/cancer, but the rest of the pathology was, IMO, much too basic for step1. B&B made more clinical correlations than pathoma did and did a much better job presenting pertinent information like you'll see on the exam.
Completely agree. I took Step 1 a while back. I did very well. All I used was FA + UW + Google for whatever I wanted to know more about or didn't know, which often landed me on Wiki.
I didn't find out about B&B until halfway into 2nd year, I still used pathoma for each block and I'd still use it at least once, but the last ~4 months before my test I focused mainly on using B&B. I would do both but if I had to pick one I think I'd pick B&B
It depends how your school does your blocks but Pathoma would've been irrelevant for me during 1st year because I was just doing basic sciences all of first year and it wouldn't be applicable. I would use B&B from M1 year because it covers everything (except pure anatomy). I would use Sketchy whenever you are doing micro and I did that during 1st year too!
