Textbooks for neuroscience?

[jram2323]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Im in my last year of undergrad and am holding onto the book Neuroscience by Purves and "the brain atlas" by Woolsey, Hanaway and Gado. Are any of these textbooks useful for med school neuroscience? Should I just sell them?

 

[xffan624]

Im in my last year of undergrad and am holding onto the book Neuroscience by Purves and "the brain atlas" by Woolsey, Hanaway and Gado. Are any of these textbooks useful for med school neuroscience? Should I just sell them?

The purves book was one of our reference books for our neuro course. I found it helpful.

 

[PL198]

Textbooks are useless for medical school in my opinion. The notes have everything you need to know, and if something isn't explained well, you can just wikipedia. I don't understand why medical students waste hundreds of dollars on books.

 

[ewax]

Purves is really dense and seems more like it was written for a neuroscience grad student. I used the Haines atlas and Blumenfeld text for neuro first year and did fine. Seriously though, buy or download the Blumenfeld book from the money you get selling Purves. It's a fantastic book and the cases at the end of chapters really help nail down difficult concepts.

 

[brahms11]

+1 for blumenfeld. Superb book. Hang on to the atlas as it can be useful to see different illustrations of/approaches to the same concepts.

 

[CBG23]

Textbooks are useless for medical school in my opinion. The notes have everything you need to know, and if something isn't explained well, you can just wikipedia. I don't understand why medical students waste hundreds of dollars on books.

Maybe textbooks aren't for everyone, but I cringe when I read about medical students using Wikipedia as a study resource.

 

[bulldogmed]

+2 for blumenfeld

 

[Priapism4tooLong]

Textbooks are useless for medical school in my opinion. The notes have everything you need to know, and if something isn't explained well, you can just wikipedia. I don't understand why medical students waste hundreds of dollars on books.

i disagree with this, i love reading from good textbooks. Loved lipincotts biochem, Goljan/Robbins, Nelsons, Blueprint series. I love everything.

 

[Psai]

Maybe textbooks aren't for everyone, but I cringe when I read about medical students using Wikipedia as a study resource.

Why? I use wikipedia all the time. It's not always the most reliable source but the explanations tend to be well written and it's a decent way to jog your memory for those things that you learned but don't quite remember.

 

[NickNaylor]

We used this text: http://www.amazon.com/Medical-Neurobiology-Peggy-Mason-PhD/dp/0195339975/.

It helped that the author was also our professor, but personally I found the text to be a great review. It's a little "soft" - it's not written like your typical facts-only text - but I thought it was a great text. It explains things concisely and in an easily comprehensible manner. For what it's worth, though, my only knowledge of neuroscience going into medical school was what action potentials are and that there's a brain, so take it for what you will. I really needed a "back to basics" text since I knew next to nothing.

My only issue with the book is that the figures could be improved as they tend to be pretty busy. But it's a text that is easily accessible and not an absolute pain in the ass to read.

 

[Prince090]

I use clinical neuroanatomy by snell. It beats blumenfeld by miles. Snell coupled with dr. Najeeb and you become the grandmaster of neuro.

I asked two of my seniors who both scored greater than 260 on step 1 and they both recommended me this approach.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

Blumenfeld's was amazing. It's one of the few textbooks I used during med school and it's so well-written, that I nearly read it cover-to-cover. That's how good of a book it is. Part of why it's so good is that, even though it's a relatively long book, it doesn't read like a textbook. You go through it pretty quickly and the clinical cases you work through at the end of each chapter really reinforce all the important points. It made neuroanatomy into one of my strongest subjects. I highly recommend Blumenfeld's.

I glanced at Purves and wasn't a fan of it. Never read the book linked by Nick, but I would most likely still prefer Blumenfeld's.

 

[PL198]

Wikipedia is still relatively infalliable. People act like anyone can edit wikipedia and post that like " IgA is the immunoglobulin responsible for allergic reactions." Well yes that's possible, but it's going to be edited in a few minutes back to the correct answer. It's not like it isn't checked thoroughly. It's a pretty high quality information site... I'm curious as to someone producing a wikipedia page that is blatantly inaccurate. I'd say that a lot of times they are much more organized than typical academic sites, which make following a flow of information much easier. Honestly I've yet to wikipedia something and then later decide it was incorrect.

 

[Chris V]

I use clinical neuroanatomy by snell. It beats blumenfeld by miles. Snell coupled with dr. Najeeb and you become the grandmaster of neuro.

I asked two of my seniors who both scored greater than 260 on step 1 and they both recommended me this approach.

Hello, Did you use this approach, yourself? I would like to know how much of Snell to go over since my school doesn't go over neuro that well. Should I go over the entire book with najeeb for step 1?