I have talked to a million people and what everyone has agreed upon is 1st aid and Qbank...i was wondering what you think of pathophys for boards and wards instead of BRS path, i've heard some MSIII say they wished they had read Boards and Wards since almost all questions they got were somewhere to be found in that book...please let me know what you think..by the way, i have the Goljan audios, so i was thinking to supplement those audios with Boards and wards...thanks!!
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Step I Pathophys for B&W Vs. BRS path
Started by samyjay
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
This thread isnt official homey, ahaha
just kidding. Man that 75q practice test is really good. They had acid-base questions in there that showed up on the path shelf exam, so u might wanna hit up that practice test. The other questions were really good too.
later
just kidding. Man that 75q practice test is really good. They had acid-base questions in there that showed up on the path shelf exam, so u might wanna hit up that practice test. The other questions were really good too.
later
Hi,
ive used both in my curriculum and there definitely are differences between two, so much so that they are two separate textbooks that should be used together. the B&W is basically just a condensed, pocket pathophys book and the BRS is a path review book (tells you about the lesion and that's it)
the B&W explains a lot about the underlying disease mechanism and is great for wanting to know how that lesion/disease developed. since the USMLE is becoming more pathophys orinted, the B&W is not a waste of time (IMO) and a great resource, but i would NOT blow off the BRS or goljan notes, if you have them (goljan), they are simply too good a path resource not to use them and the B&W does not get into those descriptions of lesions/disease that those pathology review resources get into. hope that helps 👍
ive used both in my curriculum and there definitely are differences between two, so much so that they are two separate textbooks that should be used together. the B&W is basically just a condensed, pocket pathophys book and the BRS is a path review book (tells you about the lesion and that's it)
the B&W explains a lot about the underlying disease mechanism and is great for wanting to know how that lesion/disease developed. since the USMLE is becoming more pathophys orinted, the B&W is not a waste of time (IMO) and a great resource, but i would NOT blow off the BRS or goljan notes, if you have them (goljan), they are simply too good a path resource not to use them and the B&W does not get into those descriptions of lesions/disease that those pathology review resources get into. hope that helps 👍
