Understand path/pathphys BETTER from pharm lectures??

[unsung]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Is it just me? I'm trying to figure if it's a matter of pharmacology lectures being taught better than the subject lectures at my school... or just that I learn better from the way pharmacology is taught.

Usually pharm lectures for particular drug classes will begin with a short overview of the path or pathophys of the disease. And invariably, I will learn more from that short 10 minute summary than I often will from 30 minutes of a supposed "pathophys" lecture.

It's really only from pharmacology that I began to understand oh, this is why fever happens from this disease. In the actual lecture about that disease, they almost never go into that kind of detail. As a result, I end up just memorizing a bunch of symptoms, only being able to tell you "why" a few of the symptoms occur (and basically just memorizing the rest).

With pharm, it's like to understand how particular drugs work, you're forced to understand the pathways/mechanisms... and as a consequence, you understand the path/pathphys of the disease itself, that much better.

I also like how pharm is so much more "organized", so it helps to think about a disease in terms of its inflammatory component (tx w/ anti-inflammatories), its dyslipidemia component, etc. etc. When I organize thinking about the disease in terms of the drug classes used to treat it, I feel like I understand it much better. It feels like I'm "understanding" things more than blind memorization of symptoms/treatments, as in other classes...

So, MSIIs... thoughts on this?

 

[Mace1370]

We haven't started pharm yet (and I don't think we will until after December or so), but my experience so far has been the same as your's re: pathophys.

Some symptoms are explained, some aren't. It is mostly just memorizing with arbitrary explanations. Books like RR and BRS seem to explain things infinitely better than our course instructors/lab manuals. Sadly, information from the latter is what we are tested on.

 

[Rollo]

I learn path very well from Robbins which I reinforce with Rapid Review, webpath questions, and Robbins review questions.

I just think your pharm lectures are taught better than your path lectures.

 

[alphaholic06]

Learn Path and Pathophys from Goljan, and you will understand the mechanisms.

 

[unsung]

I learn path very well from Robbins which I reinforce with Rapid Review, webpath questions, and Robbins review questions.

I just think your pharm lectures are taught better than your path lectures.

For sure. Once I started doing Robbins review Qs, I noticed a big jump in my understanding. It also corresponds amazingly well to Gojan's. Sign that both are covering the important key points, perhaps?

Yeah, it's kind of bizarre. We have dedicated "path" classes, and then we also have "subject" classes (i.e. "cardio"), which I guess are supposed to be pathophys lectures... but really end up being just a jumbled up mesh of whatever the particular lecturer considers important.

So some lectures we might have someone basically spend the time singing the praises of CABG, or what not... and at the end of it, I'm like, hmm... so how much path or pathophys did I actually learn from that?

Ugh ok. So... mystery solved, I guess. It's just me. 😛

 

[unsung]

we haven't started pharm yet (and i don't think we will until after december or so), but my experience so far has been the same as your's re: Pathophys.

some symptoms are explained, some aren't. It is mostly just memorizing with arbitrary explanations. Books like rr and brs seem to explain things infinitely better than our course instructors/lab manuals. Sadly, information from the latter is what we are tested on.

ita.