Penultimate 2012 Step 1 Errata Posted!

[Zzmed]

---

Members don't see this ad.

For those sticking to FA 2012, there is an updated errata file (December 31, 2012) posted in their website.

http://www.firstaidteam.com/wp-content/uploads/First-Aid-Step-1-2012-errata-121231.pdf

 

[fleshwound]

what's new?

 

[WilliamsEph]

Yeah I love how they are so lazy that they don't even bother hiring enough editors and rely on their customers (us) to do that job. Oh wow a $10 gift certificate!

That aside, how nice of them NOT to list what were the new errata from the July 2012 list. I guess they figure all of us have the time to go through 28 pages and check for ourselves.

 

[fleshwound]

they call it the dec 31st errata but don't release it until now; they obviously had those errata compiled long ago, since those changes are correct in the 2013 edition

 

[BelieveTheHype]

28 pages with like 25+ errors on a page. I can't believe I paid for this rubbish. How in their "good" conscious can they keep peddling out this book year after year with similar mistakes and keep charging money without batting an eye lid? I am currently using MedEssentials, because quiet honestly the layout beats FA by a mile and many sections are explained better / includes more details. I will refer to FA to add in any missing info, because vice versa I would be writing a lot more. People should give both books a thorough look and decide for themselves.

 

[fleshwound]

 

[Briske]

what's new?

I thought they used to put asterisks next to new additions but not in this one 🙁

 

[fleshwound]

I thought they used to put asterisks next to new additions but not in this one 🙁

even worse, now they just say to refer to the new diagram. they don't even say what's different for most of the new diagrams

 

[Goober11]

Sorry, but "penultimate" means second to last. Are you saying we are to expect another errata for FA 2012? Promise I am not calling the grammar police I'm just wondering.

 

[Suncrusher]

 

[Jonari]

Yeah I love how they are so lazy that they don't even bother hiring enough editors and rely on their customers (us) to do that job. Oh wow a $10 gift certificate!

That aside, how nice of them NOT to list what were the new errata from the July 2012 list. I guess they figure all of us have the time to go through 28 pages and check for ourselves.

they call it the dec 31st errata but don't release it until now; they obviously had those errata compiled long ago, since those changes are correct in the 2013 edition

28 pages with like 25+ errors on a page. I can't believe I paid for this rubbish. How in their "good" conscious can they keep peddling out this book year after year with similar mistakes and keep charging money without batting an eye lid? I am currently using MedEssentials, because quiet honestly the layout beats FA by a mile and many sections are explained better / includes more details. I will refer to FA to add in any missing info, because vice versa I would be writing a lot more. People should give both books a thorough look and decide for themselves.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I thought I was complaining too much, but the errors are pretty absurd. Going to email them this thread...

 

[Phloston]

Sorry, but "penultimate" means second to last. Are you saying we are to expect another errata for FA 2012? Promise I am not calling the grammar police I'm just wondering.

😉

 

[Jonari]

nvm my mistake

 

[Old Style Nanny]

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I thought I was complaining too much, but the errors are pretty absurd. Going to email them this thread...

You think it is absurd that they corrected all these errors, and even updated a few of the points based on the current ideas in medicine?

Printing a book is not the same as typing out a Word document and printing it on your printer. It is a massive process, and the templates need to be reset every time a new error is found. I wouldn't be surprised if they had less than one month between completing the page layouts and sending it to print for the bound and polished book to be in the stores by December!

If they had to hire ten full-time proofreaders who are familiar with M1 and M2 material so they can churn out typo free copies every year, just think how much higher your book is going to cost. And even if cost were not an issue, where are they going to find such people? You can't expect the authors themselves to proof-read every word right? And regular proofreaders won't do that great a job either (as evidenced by the current errata) since they have limited frames of reference. Next best thing to hiring actual doctors to do it who are not going to be available? Hire doctors-in-training to do it @ $10 a tip!

On a side note, I am happy to see this errata and happier that I am sticking with FA2012 as I notice a lot of errata corrections were actually correct in FA2011/FA2010 (some of my flashcards that I got had been made from FA2011 or FA2010). So, imagine how many are going to be correct in FA2012 and not in FA2013!

 

[Anonymous2000]

You think it is absurd that they corrected all these errors, and even updated a few of the points based on the current ideas in medicine?

Printing a book is not the same as typing out a Word document and printing it on your printer. It is a massive process, and the templates need to be reset every time a new error is found. I wouldn't be surprised if they had less than one month between completing the page layouts and sending it to print for the bound and polished book to be in the stores by December!

If they had to hire ten full-time proofreaders who are familiar with M1 and M2 material so they can churn out typo free copies every year, just think how much higher your book is going to cost. And even if cost were not an issue, where are qthey going to find such people? You can't expect the authors themselves to proof-read every word right? And regular proofreaders won't do that great a job either (as evidenced by the current errata) since they have limited frames of reference. Next best thing to hiring actual doctors to do it who are not going to be available? Hire doctors-in-training to do it @ $10 a tip!


On a side note, I am happy to see this errata and happier that I am sticking with FA2012 as I notice a lot of errata corrections were actually correct in FA2011/FA2010 (some of my flashcards that I got had been made from FA2011 or FA2010). So, imagine how many are going to be correct in FA2012 and not in FA2021

Thought I could make all the corrections during a 5 hr flight I had recently but still have like 5 pages of errata that I have to pain-stakingly go through! Ahh!

 

[Old Style Nanny]

Thought I could make all the corrections during a 5 hr flight I had recently but still have like 5 pages of errata that I have to pain-stakingly go through! Ahh!

Yeah, the mid-year one took me about four hours. I'm assuming this one is going to take another three at least given how much they seem to have added without marking them as new.

By the way, for those who have already updated to the old errata, beware: don't skip a new errata because the page numbers and topics match. Even on my cursory review I found many extra lines new on the last column where the first two columns matched.

 

[Zzmed]

On a side note, I am happy to see this errata and happier that I am sticking with FA2012 as I notice a lot of errata corrections were actually correct in FA2011/FA2010 (some of my flashcards that I got had been made from FA2011 or FA2010). So, imagine how many are going to be correct in FA2012 and not in FA2013!

I totally agree with you.
These guys do their best to bring FA2012 to the highest level possible even if FA2013 has been released! They correct mistakes over and over again, and they even give us some schematics, tables and clarifications from 2013 edition!

To be honest, you can trust FA 2013 too. But why getting into all this trouble, especially if you have started working on 2012 edition?

Bottom line: FA2012 + errata + FA2013 > FA2012 + errata = FA2013

 

[Old Style Nanny]

I totally agree with you.
These guys do their best to bring FA2012 to the highest level possible even if FA2013 has been released! They correct mistakes over and over again, and they even give us some schematics, tables and clarifications from 2013 edition!

To be honest, you can trust FA 2013 too. But why getting into all this trouble, especially if you have started working on 2012 edition?

Bottom line: FA2012 + errata + FA2013 > FA2012 + errata = FA2013

I have not bothered to invest on an FA2013 so could you tell me the reasons you find FA2013 essential? I decided to skip it because:

1). No one knows how many new errors have crept up and going by the new typos every year, there is a very high chance it has a plenty of that.

2). A friend who physically compared the two editions told me that the content difference is negligible and most of the difference is in the layout (especially with regards to embryology which was changed from being a separate chapter to a preface on each of the systems now).

 

[Old Style Nanny]

Just finished doing it. In reality, took only about 2 hours. It has quite a lot of changes but not too much, from the last errata.

 

[BelieveTheHype]

You think it is absurd that they corrected all these errors, and even updated a few of the points based on the current ideas in medicine?

Printing a book is not the same as typing out a Word document and printing it on your printer. It is a massive process, and the templates need to be reset every time a new error is found. I wouldn't be surprised if they had less than one month between completing the page layouts and sending it to print for the bound and polished book to be in the stores by December!

If they had to hire ten full-time proofreaders who are familiar with M1 and M2 material so they can churn out typo free copies every year, just think how much higher your book is going to cost. And even if cost were not an issue, where are they going to find such people? You can't expect the authors themselves to proof-read every word right? And regular proofreaders won't do that great a job either (as evidenced by the current errata) since they have limited frames of reference. Next best thing to hiring actual doctors to do it who are not going to be available? Hire doctors-in-training to do it @ $10 a tip!

On a side note, I am happy to see this errata and happier that I am sticking with FA2012 as I notice a lot of errata corrections were actually correct in FA2011/FA2010 (some of my flashcards that I got had been made from FA2011 or FA2010). So, imagine how many are going to be correct in FA2012 and not in FA2013!

Why does a template need to be reset if you are changing an "a" to an "e"? Sorry, but that doesn't seem like a "massive" process to me. Appears more like lazy editing and a half hearted effort. This is not something new, and in fact complaints have been raised for years about the mediocre revisions that are being pumped out year after year. The team has one year between each edition, and there are hardly any factual additions. 2012 to the 2013 edition = Put the embryo in each corresponding organ system and correct the 28 pages of errors, so $50 please! From the 2011 to the 2012 edition, a lot of the errata was not even corrected. I guess when you have a monopoly on the USMLE market and everyone is in bondage to the FA USMLE Step 1, they know that no matter what they serve up, there is a buck to be made. I would challenge anyone to go to their nearest book store, open up a copy of FA and MedEssentials side by side and compare 5 random topics, then make up your own educated decision on what is the better product. I am not saying a book shouldn't be exempt from errors and a few pages are reasonable, but 28 pages with like 30 errors on each page is just rubbish.

 

[Zuhal]

Why does a template need to be reset if you are changing an "a" to an "e"? Sorry, but that doesn't seem like a "massive" process to me. Appears more like lazy editing and a half hearted effort. This is not something new, and in fact complaints have been raised for years about the mediocre revisions that are being pumped out year after year. The team has one year between each edition, and there are hardly any factual additions. 2012 to the 2013 edition = Put the embryo in each corresponding organ system and correct the 28 pages of errors, so $50 please! From the 2011 to the 2012 edition, a lot of the errata was not even corrected. I guess when you have a monopoly on the USMLE market and everyone is in bondage to the FA USMLE Step 1, they know that no matter what they serve up, there is a buck to be made. I would challenge anyone to go to their nearest book store, open up a copy of FA and MedEssentials side by side and compare 5 random topics, then make up your own educated decision on what is the better product. I am not saying a book shouldn't be exempt from errors and a few pages are reasonable, but 28 pages with like 30 errors on each page is just rubbish.

ditto

 

[Old Style Nanny]

Why does a template need to be reset if you are changing an "a" to an "e"? Sorry, but that doesn't seem like a "massive" process to me. Appears more like lazy editing and a half hearted effort. This is not something new, and in fact complaints have been raised for years about the mediocre revisions that are being pumped out year after year. The team has one year between each edition, and there are hardly any factual additions. 2012 to the 2013 edition = Put the embryo in each corresponding organ system and correct the 28 pages of errors, so $50 please! From the 2011 to the 2012 edition, a lot of the errata was not even corrected. I guess when you have a monopoly on the USMLE market and everyone is in bondage to the FA USMLE Step 1, they know that no matter what they serve up, there is a buck to be made. I would challenge anyone to go to their nearest book store, open up a copy of FA and MedEssentials side by side and compare 5 random topics, then make up your own educated decision on what is the better product. I am not saying a book shouldn't be exempt from errors and a few pages are reasonable, but 28 pages with like 30 errors on each page is just rubbish.

Here you go: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/offset-printing2.htm. You need to make a new plate every time you need to correct an 'a' to an 'e'.

Here's a fun fact. According to an article published in Nature, even Britannica Encyclopedia has an average of 2.9 errors per article. But you just trust it is correct and is the gold standard because you don't know better. If FA never published their errata, chances are you'd think what it says is the absolute truth too.

EDIT: Also, about you saying them taking $50 for embryology change, get this: no one is forcing you to buy the newest edition! Them changing the layout of their book is their decision. Heck, if you are happy with 2009 edition, you are still welcome to use it. They are not going to take back your old book because it is now 2013.

 

[BelieveTheHype]

Here you go: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/offset-printing2.htm. You need to make a new plate every time you need to correct an 'a' to an 'e'.

Here's a fun fact. According to an article published in Nature, even Britannica Encyclopedia has an average of 2.9 errors per article. But you just trust it is correct and is the gold standard because you don't know better. If FA never published their errata, chances are you'd think what it says is the absolute truth too.

EDIT: Also, about you saying them taking $50 for embryology change, get this: no one is forcing you to buy the newest edition! Them changing the layout of their book is their decision. Heck, if you are happy with 2009 edition, you are still welcome to use it. They are not going to take back your old book because it is now 2013.

When you talk about changing the template, are the editors on the computer making the printing plates? 🙂 I don't work in the printing industry, but don't they just pass on the digital file and let the printing company take care of the rest?. The job of the editors and writers of the FA is to make sure to include factually correct information and minimize errors. As I said, a few pages of errata is expected, but not 28 pages with like 30 errors on a page, which you ignored. Even a book like Rapid Review Pathology, which is so factually dense, has much fewer errors on it's 3rd edition. And thanks for pointing out that I don't need to buy a new edition of First Aid, I don't intend to. The fact that a new edition comes out each year, most of the time with minimal additions/changes, in a way proves a point that it is more about business and profit than the quality of the product. I will let this be my last comment on this topic, because I am not interested in beating a dead horse and we have our differences in opinion.

 

[Zzmed]

I have not bothered to invest on an FA2013 so could you tell me the reasons you find FA2013 essential? I decided to skip it because:

1). No one knows how many new errors have crept up and going by the new typos every year, there is a very high chance it has a plenty of that.

2). A friend who physically compared the two editions told me that the content difference is negligible and most of the difference is in the layout (especially with regards to embryology which was changed from being a separate chapter to a preface on each of the systems now).

I haven't bought it yet, but it's more wise to see what has really changed by yourself and not rely on what other people say (just embryo etc etc). Someone may find that some additions are negligible, but these negligible additions may work for you and make you understand better what you're studying.

I don't believe that sticking to FA2012 is a bad idea, but a glance through 2013 edition won't harm you. The opposite, you will review FA one more time by just checking what's new. 😉

Also, about you saying them taking $50 for embryology change, get this: no one is forcing you to buy the newest edition! Them changing the layout of their book is their decision. Heck, if you are happy with 2009 edition, you are still welcome to use it. They are not going to take back your old book because it is now 2013.

Exactly.

 

[Old Style Nanny]

When you talk about changing the template, are the editors on the computer making the printing plates? 🙂 I don't work in the printing industry, but don't they just pass on the digital file and let the printing company take care of the rest?.

You don't think the printing company makes mistakes? I am beginning to think you haven't gone through the FA errata. There are a lot of changes that are clearly purely typeset errors.

The job of the editors and writers of the FA is to make sure to include factually correct information and minimize errors. As I said, a few pages of errata is expected, but not 28 pages with like 30 errors on a page, which you ignored.

I didn't ignore it. I implied that it is good that they are actively proving corrections and doing their best to give you the best. After all, they've got their 40 bucks when you purchased the book. Why do they have to even bother with an errata? Not like anyone can sue them for scoring low on the step because they made a mistake in their book. But they are doing it, and they are not worried about the criticism the large errata gathers. That needs to be commended, rather than criticized. For all you know, the other Kaplan book you are talking about has even more errors, undetected.

Even a book like Rapid Review Pathology, which is so factually dense, has much fewer errors on it's 3rd edition.

Oh RR Path is now bringing out new editions every year?

And thanks for pointing out that I don't need to buy a new edition of First Aid, I don't intend to. The fact that a new edition comes out each year, most of the time with minimal additions/changes, in a way proves a point that it is more about business and profit than the quality product.

Of course it is a business. And of course they are here to make a profit! 🙂 And yes, you don't have to fall for it. But it is certainly a feel-good factor for someone starting to prepare in 2013 to have a book that says 2013 on its cover! But if you already have the 2012 edition, it makes little sense to get the new one. This is what I have been saying for a while now. And given the fact that it is probably the most comprehensive book that is available for step 1 prep, it would be just good sense to get it and correct the errors as you feel fit while building on it.

I will let this be my last comment on this topic, because I am not interested in beating a dead horse and we have our differences in opinion.

Cool. Good luck with MedEssentials!

 

[JP2740]

Just use 2013.

 

[Old Style Nanny]

I haven't bought it yet, but it's more wise to see what has really changed by yourself and not rely on what other people say (just embryo etc etc). Someone may find that some additions are negligible, but these negligible additions may work for you and make you understand better what you're studying.

I don't believe that sticking to FA2012 is a bad idea, but a glance through 2013 edition won't harm you. The opposite, you will review FA one more time by just checking what's new. 😉

All true. I will make sure to go through the new edition at least once sometime soon.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

I think the probem a lot of people had is that the errors in 2012 weren't just typeset errors....there were lots of factual errors that were just plain wrong and as an added bonus made quite a few of the memory aids make no sense anymore. As someone else mentioned, they didn't even bother to correct plenty of the 2011 errors. I mean some of their errata in 2012 involve changing whole parts of diagrams which makes your book just look like a mess.

 

[MedianEminence]

Hey guys, I'm an MS1 and I got 2011 FA for free. I'm taking step1 in 2014... should I buy the 2012 or 2013 FA and start annotating it or should I keep using 2011? Thanks!