Quantcast

Pathoma v. Goljan Rapid Review- what is the difference?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

red leader

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
20
Reaction score
11

Members don't see this ad.
Sooooo, what's the difference between Pathoma and Goljan Rapid Review?? Is one better than the other? Are they comprehensive resources like FA, or used for a particular topic?

Sorry if this is naive but I'm only an M0... And no I will not be purchasing these anytime soon, I was just curious.

Thanks!
 

StepRepeater1

Full Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2015
Messages
47
Reaction score
6
Goljan has too many details but covers Nutrition and Environmental Poisoning well and has lots of pictures. Pathoma is quick and easy and covers most topics you need for step 1. People say Goljan will increase your score double digits. Is one or the other necessary for Step 1? Depends on your weakness and understanding of pathology. You can use it per topic during the year while studying, or comprehensive when studying for Step. It has sections divided per organ system. Pathoma + Vids = good enough for everything in my opinion (school or step). Goljan is maybe if you want to score those extra points.. though you will never really recall anything you read in Goljan. Pathoma is better for visual memory retention.​
 

blueshockey

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
326
Reaction score
163
I know a fair amount of people in my class studied using goljan along with classes and then switched to pathoma when the boards crunch started setting in. I personally used pathoma and if there was something I didn't understand fully I would look in goljan or use google-fu
 

LaCroix09

Full Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
124
Reaction score
4
I use both. I used Pathoma pretty religiously late into M1 and all through M2. Currently using them both for S1.

I guess it probably depends on how you study best, which you'll figure out before long. I need to hear/see things over and over again, so I watch Pathoma videos at night and listen to Goljan audio any time I'm in the car, in the shower, or at the gym.
 

pd1112

Full Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
865
Reaction score
713
RR (700pgs) integrates phys, path, pathophys, epidemiology, biochem, etc. He actually explains concepts briefly and it is much more comprehensive, but it takes much more time to get through as a result. It also contains a lot of details (labs, etc) that are likely beyond the scope of Step 1.

Pathoma is probably the bare minimum you would want to know for path to score around average. The text (200pgs) is limited to mostly path with some basic explanations, but the videos provide more integrations and are a great change of pace from FA and practice questions.

I'm using RR as a reference in dedicated when I need explanations beyond FA, which basically has none. If I could start M2 over again, I would use RR throughout the year alongside classes & as my primary review book in dedicated, and I would only use FA for topics not in RR.

Best advice: Keep asking around about resources like you're doing and learn as much as you can, glance at copies at the bookstore/library, and figure out which ones will fit with your learning style. If you have a solid plan going into M2, it's a lot easier to set on cruise and ignore all of the noise.
 

sloop

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
May 12, 2015
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
2,639
I haven't used Goljan but the way you all talk about it, I'm thinking I should reconsider.

That being said, I can't imagine how it is "necessary". Maybe it is if you don't remember anything from your path course? I've just been using pathoma and I haven't had problems on the path sections of UWorld or diagnostics (NBME/UWSA). I think my path bar was basically maxed out on the NBME I took. Then again, path was my best subject to begin with.

My mileage: Pathoma has been great for me. It's a very concise resource that is great for finals and boards studying and as an adjunct for your path course. YMMV, but I know a lot of people who said they literally only used Pathoma to study for the path course at our school and I believe them. That said, I never went this route because I was trying to get honors and I felt like it would be helpful to set a good foundational knowledge for path. I think this was important for me.

As I said, I now think I may try Goljan, but I don't feel like I necessarily need it. I think if you go through the entire second year only studying Pathoma for path and then want to try to push into the higher step 1 scores, you definitely might feel you truly need something else.
 
Last edited:

stevesteve123

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
114
Reaction score
39
Gojan is a MF'er to get thru. was hating every second of my life going through it

with Pathoma (the videos), time just flies by
 

spicysoup55

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
99
Reaction score
12
Goljan also has a series of audio lectures that I highly recommend. If you ask around people in your med school you should be able to find it pretty easily.

Do you guys think goljan rapid review, pathoma, and first aid are adequate for content review before hitting the q-banks? Or is it necessary to use some of the other basic science review materials (BRS/High Yield Physiology/Embryology, etc)? What about for people who are weaker in the basic sciences?
 

Jabbed

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
1,767
Reaction score
2,099
I never understood why people say that RR takes forever to get through. The design and layout of that book is brilliant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

nds86

Medicine is my Lawful Wife
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
131
Reaction score
41
I never understood why people say that RR takes forever to get through. The design and layout of that book is brilliant.

784 pages of facts can take time and is not worth it during dedicated study. Best use, like many have said here, is to use RR during MS1+2, then switch to Pathoma for step studying. Even if I read all of 784 in like 2 weeks, how much will I actually retain by the 8th week is the key in terms of doing well on Step. On the other hand, 200 or so pages of Pathoma can be completed multiple times to understand and to repeat important concepts.
 

pd1112

Full Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
865
Reaction score
713
Goljan also has a series of audio lectures that I highly recommend. If you ask around people in your med school you should be able to find it pretty easily.

Do you guys think goljan rapid review, pathoma, and first aid are adequate for content review before hitting the q-banks? Or is it necessary to use some of the other basic science review materials (BRS/High Yield Physiology/Embryology, etc)? What about for people who are weaker in the basic sciences?

Unnecessary to do all of that reviewing without testing what you know. Integrate qbanks to figure out where you're weak then add other resources as needed.
 

Jabbed

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
1,767
Reaction score
2,099
784 pages of facts can take time and is not worth it during dedicated study. Best use, like many have said here, is to use RR during MS1+2, then switch to Pathoma for step studying. Even if I read all of 784 in like 2 weeks, how much will I actually retain by the 8th week is the key in terms of doing well on Step. On the other hand, 200 or so pages of Pathoma can be completed multiple times to understand and to repeat important concepts.
That's the thing, it's not meant to be read in it's entirety. The beauty of it is that it gives you a 'rapid review' of all the factoids that you should already know (blue boxes) as well as the option to read a bit more information on any particular topic that you feel conceptually weak in (the walls of text adjacent to the blue boxes). It encourages efficient reading.
 

red leader

Full Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
20
Reaction score
11
RR (700pgs) integrates phys, path, pathophys, epidemiology, biochem, etc. He actually explains concepts briefly and it is much more comprehensive, but it takes much more time to get through as a result. It also contains a lot of details (labs, etc) that are likely beyond the scope of Step 1.

Pathoma is probably the bare minimum you would want to know for path to score around average. The text (200pgs) is limited to mostly path with some basic explanations, but the videos provide more integrations and are a great change of pace from FA and practice questions.

I'm using RR as a reference in dedicated when I need explanations beyond FA, which basically has none. If I could start M2 over again, I would use RR throughout the year alongside classes & as my primary review book in dedicated, and I would only use FA for topics not in RR.

Best advice: Keep asking around about resources like you're doing and learn as much as you can, glance at copies at the bookstore/library, and figure out which ones will fit with your learning style. If you have a solid plan going into M2, it's a lot easier to set on cruise and ignore all of the noise.

Thanks for the info @pd1112 . I guess it's hard to think about each resource without actually paging through a copy in front of you. It seems like people have good things to say about both. It just depends on your learning style and if you prefer a concept review or a comprehensive resource.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

pd1112

Full Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
865
Reaction score
713
Why is it called Rapid Review if it takes forever to get through it? That's just deceiving! :(

There's no such thing as a rapid review of pathology, it's just the title of the book series. It doesn't take as long as many are saying. The format makes it easy to skim, while the explanations are there if you need them. Plus Papi is the best.
 
Top