Is this a common thing?

[dr.sartorius]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Is it me, or does studying for boards make you conscious of the fact that many topics on step 1 were not actually covered throughout your medical school education? I don't mean a significant chunk, but there are topics we did not even graze. This concerns me, will I have enough time to re-learn as well as learn a few handfuls of new things? I hope I am not the only person feeling this way, I know 2 years isn't enough time to learn everything, but I hope it's still possible to do well despite learning new things as I study.

 

[TorsoLigament]

I'm not sure where you went to medical school but as an IMG, I feel the same exact way.

 

[seminoma]

Looking through FA throughout MS1 and thus far during MS2 has showed me that there is definitely a decent amount of stuff not covered in my school curriculum. And that's just compared to the barebones FA... imagine how much stuff is probably out there not mentioned in FA.

It's amazing because our school tells us to read all of Robbins, yet things that are in FA are not emphasized.

 

[Transposony]

Looking through FA throughout MS1 and thus far during MS2 has showed me that there is definitely a decent amount of stuff not covered in my school curriculum. And that's just compared to the barebones FA... imagine how much stuff is probably out there not mentioned in FA.

It's amazing because our school tells us to read all of Robbins, yet things that are in FA are not emphasized.

But if you read Robbins you will understand and there will be no need to emphasize or memorize many things.
What I am trying to say is that if you understand a topic you can figure out the answer on the real deal with your "gut feeling".

 

[seminoma]

But if you read Robbins you will understand and there will be no need to emphasize or memorize many things.
What I am trying to say is that if you understand a topic you can figure out the answer on the real deal with your "gut feeling".

Yea. Although I do think that Robbins has more value in seeing minutiae rather than understanding. No doubt you'll understand things if you read Robbins, but it's just not time efficient. Pathoma is great for simply understanding. Goljan RR is great for filling in details left out of Pathoma. Robbins is great for filling in even more details.

Most of the time if I don't understand something from pathoma and RR I will read Robbins... But only rarely does Robbins clarify anything for me. Obviously different strokes though.