Rapid Review Path 2nd edition vs. 3rd edition

[badasshairday]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm going to say it. I think the 2nd edition is better for a "rapid review". The 3rd edition's strength lies in the fact that it has more pictures, but it also has way more information that is more important for Step 2.

I have both editions and compared sections. The 3rd edition, with its extras, makes it more tedious and a much longer read from the 2nd edition. Both books are 600 pages of text, however as you know the pages are much larger in the 3rd edition so there is much more text per page. I wouldn't be surprised if it is another ~100 pages of more material if we scaled the page sizes to equal size. I'm contemplating taking home the 2nd edition for spring break and shotgunning through it because it is a more concise book, despite having read through and annotating the 3rd edition throughout the school year.

I mean the book is solid no matter what. It just takes a really long time to read, and often times you are reading information that is not even relevant to Step 1. Maybe RR path is going the way that HY Cell and Molecular did.

Just my opinion. I may still just bring home the 3rd edition and do the spring break study with it... i don't know yet. Does anyone else feel the same?

Edit: I guess I'm just tired of reading. The ~100 pages extra that I eluded to in the post is probably more due to extra pictures rather than just extra text. You can usually just glaze over treatment sections to avoid Step 2 pollution in the book.

 

[username456789]

How's the Heme section of the 2nd edition? I have the 3rd edition and that kills me every time I try to read it.

 

[1nycdoc8]

I kind of like the fact that there's more in the treatment section, I think it's a good way to integrate pharmacology to path. I have no idea what's considered step 2 material though so...

 

[illixir]

I'm not sure how you can make the judgement that a given item in RR path is only important for step 2 and not step 1, especially if you havent even done rotations or know what step 2 covers exactly. Lots of treatment issues are fair game for step 1 and the book was written as a Step 1 review book.

 

[rishi718]

thers another recent post about rr from a student at goljan's med school, and apparantly he said in lecture its for step 1 and step 2

i actually bought the 2nd like an ididot 1 mont hbefore 3rd came out. then replaced it

dont tell me i was being an idiot again?

 

[badasshairday]

i actually bought the 2nd like an ididot 1 mont hbefore 3rd came out. then replaced it

dont tell me i was being an idiot again?

lol. I did the same. I think you are fine with the 3rd edition. He does have extended discussion on physio too. So I guess it is a much more comprehensive book. I mostly just wanted to make this thread to get a critique on the 3rd edition since we are the first group of students to use it. Everyone loved the 2nd edition, and the 2nd edition plus the audio became a staple in Step 1 studying. I think I'm just gonna read through the 3rd edition again over spring break, using the margin notes to guide my reading. Should be a little faster that way.

 

[starkcrazy]

nvm.

 

[mq123]

How's the Heme section of the 2nd edition? I have the 3rd edition and that kills me every time I try to read it.

LOL...the heme section is one of my favorites in the book My friends really hated that section, but those 4 chapters or so really clicked with me...

 

[mq123]

thers another recent post about rr from a student at goljan's med school, and apparantly he said in lecture its for step 1 and step 2?

I know he says in his lectures many times that the info he's presenting is for steps 1 and 2...

lol. I did the same. I think you are fine with the 3rd edition. He does have extended discussion on physio too. So I guess it is a much more comprehensive book. I mostly just wanted to make this thread to get a critique on the 3rd edition since we are the first group of students to use it. Everyone loved the 2nd edition, and the 2nd edition plus the audio became a staple in Step 1 studying. I think I'm just gonna read through the 3rd edition again over spring break, using the margin notes to guide my reading. Should be a little faster that way.

Somehow I feel like the 3rd edition is more comprehensive because a lot more of the lecture material is in there. I've listened to some of the lectures and followed along the 3rd edition text, and they match up 95% (minus the random factoids he tosses in unrelated to the current topic or the absurd memory aids...)

I 'discovered' RR Path right after the 3rd edition came out, so I really didn't bother with the 2nd edition. It's definitely very detailed, but it helps me make sense of everything... 👍

 

[physics junkie]

I have been putting off writing my amazon review of the 3rd edition...but here goes:

Do not get the 3rd edition if you can find the 2nd. Its much, much more tedious to read. The new formatting of the book absolutely sucks(see below).

2nd edition:
Clinical Findings
i) Nausea, fatigue, vomiting
Risk Factors
i) obesity, smoking, alcohol abuse

3rd edition:
Clinical Findings
i)Nausea
ii)Fatigue
iii)Vomiting

Risk Factors
i) obesity
ii) smoking
iii) alcohol abuse

Its easy to see how the 3rd edition ballooned in size.

The 3rd edition also tosses in a bunch of step2 stuff about treatment that just slows you down. Its hard enough to read bullet points that are relevant...much less ones that aren't. Yes, there are slightly more diagrams and pictures in the 3rd edition. There is also more real, usable content in some areas that is helpful! For example, Behcet's is covered better in the 3rd than the 2nd.

In the end it feels like the 2nd edition is 90-95% of what you need to know while the 3rd edition is 130% what you need to know.

 

[badasshairday]

I have been putting off writing my amazon review of the 3rd edition...but here goes:

Do not get the 3rd edition if you can find the 2nd. Its much, much more tedious to read. The new formatting of the book absolutely sucks(see below).

2nd edition:
Clinical Findings
i) Nausea, fatigue, vomiting
Risk Factors
i) obesity, smoking, alcohol abuse

3rd edition:
Clinical Findings
i)Nausea
ii)Fatigue
iii)Vomiting

Risk Factors
i) obesity
ii) smoking
iii) alcohol abuse

Its easy to see how the 3rd edition ballooned in size.

The 3rd edition also tosses in a bunch of step2 stuff about treatment that just slows you down. Its hard enough to read bullet points that are relevant...much less ones that aren't. Yes, there are slightly more diagrams and pictures in the 3rd edition. There is also more real, usable content in some areas that is helpful! For example, Behcet's is covered better in the 3rd than the 2nd.

In the end it feels like the 2nd edition is 90-95% of what you need to know while the 3rd edition is 130% what you need to know.

I concur.


Here is what else I think:

During spring break, I have been rereading through the 3rd edition. I have experience with the 2nd edition, because I used it during the first block and a half of pathology... so I basically covered cell injury, inflammation, vascular, cardio, and a few other topics. The 3rd edition is much stronger in General Pathology than the 2nd edition. I think the consensus about the 2nd edition is that it's a great book but the general path isn't so good. I remember seeing many posts on SDN recommending BRS path for general path in the past. Goljan definitely made the 3rd edition to be written extremely well for the general pathology, so BRS Path is obsolete and not needed at all anymore.

But regardless, RR is gold. Now that I am almost done with 2nd year, going through the book again has given me a better appreciation of it. He goes into so much detail with the biochem, pharm, physio, physical diagnoses, immuno, microbiology, and even throws in some good anatomy/histo review in that book. Now I see why it is so highly rated. It is almost like a review of the first two years of medical school.

 

[killinsound]

I prefer the 3rd edition. It doesn't really leave out anything and you can skip over things that are kinda getting minutia. Plus the pictures are awesome.

 

[illixir]

I have been putting off writing my amazon review of the 3rd edition...but here goes:

Do not get the 3rd edition if you can find the 2nd. Its much, much more tedious to read. The new formatting of the book absolutely sucks(see below).

2nd edition:
Clinical Findings
i) Nausea, fatigue, vomiting
Risk Factors
i) obesity, smoking, alcohol abuse

3rd edition:
Clinical Findings
i)Nausea
ii)Fatigue
iii)Vomiting

Risk Factors
i) obesity
ii) smoking
iii) alcohol abuse

Its easy to see how the 3rd edition ballooned in size.

The 3rd edition also tosses in a bunch of step2 stuff about treatment that just slows you down. Its hard enough to read bullet points that are relevant...much less ones that aren't. Yes, there are slightly more diagrams and pictures in the 3rd edition. There is also more real, usable content in some areas that is helpful! For example, Behcet's is covered better in the 3rd than the 2nd.

In the end it feels like the 2nd edition is 90-95% of what you need to know while the 3rd edition is 130% what you need to know.

That format though you're describing allows you to burn through the book really fast once you get familiar with it, many many lines are two words describing a symptom or risk factor etc, I'm starting to get used to reading through it fast.

 

[username456789]

That format though you're describing allows you to burn through the book really fast once you get familiar with it, many many lines are two words describing a symptom or risk factor etc, I'm starting to get used to reading through it fast.

Yeah I'd actually argue that that format is BETTER, as it separates things more clearly in my mind (it's how I go about writing sx's when I take notes, rather than just listing them separated by commas on a single line).

Plus, it makes the book actually feel "shorter" as you go because an entire page takes you less time than you might've expected otherwise if everything was jammed on the same line.

I'd rather think "wow, those million pages of reading went by a little quicker than I expected" vs. "damn, it was only supposed to be 10 pages but it took me forever."