Went over pathoma 2x, but I'm still weak in path.. :*(((

[shigella123]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I went over pathoma 2 times already. I have retained some of the information, but I'm still weak in it. First time I watched all of the videos while annotating in the book and second time, 2 months later, just watched the videos with the book. I did questions and I'm still weak in path. I'm getting so frustrated with myself. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Other people go over it 1 time and they are good to go and here I'm still struggling even after going over it 2 times...

Should I be continuously going over it again and again until I get it?

 

[Alacran]

Don't worry, it happens to all of us from time to time. When this happens to me, I just go over a chapter in the book without looking at video. After looking over the chapter, I view the video and pause if I get stuck to look something up in robbins or FA. Then I return to the vid. Once I'm done, I do a light skim over the chapter again (really light). This really helps me. I know it sounds like a lot, but it's really not that much more time consuming. Plus you get better at it. Good luck

 

[Myxedema]

I agree with Alacran, but also would like to add that perhaps the problem is not about pathology per se, but about pathophysiology or certain subjects like cardiology and nervous system which Pathoma is not adequate to solve all relevant questions in pathology.

 

[Transposony]

Other people go over it 1 time and they are good to go and here I'm still struggling even after going over it 2 times...

Should I be continuously going over it again and again until I get it?

Remember the golden rule of mastering anything- use different resources for the same topic. It's because we all learn in a different way so it helps to learn from someone with a different perspective(s).
I suggest to use Goljan/Robbins for the topics you are found to be weak in by the QBank.
Hope this helps.

 

[webgenius]

Remember the golden rule of mastering anything- use different resources for the same topic. It's because we all learn in a different way so it helps to learn from someone with a different perspective(s).
I suggest to use Goljan/Robbins for the topics you are found to be weak in by the QBank.
Hope this helps.

couldn't agree more!

I memorized BRS pathology
then did FA
then did usmlerx
then did Pathoma
then did Firecracker
then FA and Pathoma again

I don't think I would've understood pathology the way I do now if I only did Pathoma.

And I'm thinking about reading Goljan rapid review 4 too when I start UW.

Each learning tool add to your knowledge/understanding base.
And they complement each other.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

I went over pathoma 2 times already. I have retained some of the information, but I'm still weak in it. First time I watched all of the videos while annotating in the book and second time, 2 months later, just watched the videos with the book. I did questions and I'm still weak in path. I'm getting so frustrated with myself. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Other people go over it 1 time and they are good to go and here I'm still struggling even after going over it 2 times...

Should I be continuously going over it again and again until I get it?

You went through one pass and did your second pass 2 months later. Are you really that surprised that you didn't retain information well? That's way too spread apart.

During M2 year, I used to go through each Pathoma section approximately 4 times spread out over the course of 1-1.5 weeks. The 4 times included watching the videos twice and doing the readings twice. Then, I read the material once more a few weeks later, right before my exam. That kind of spreading, IMHO, works really well and has helped me retain stuff really well.

Repetition is important in getting something down solid in medicine. But you have to be smart about how you space out the repetition. Having a 2 month period in-between repetitions, IMHO, is like going over everything for the first time again. At least, that's my thought on it. YMMV.

 

[shigella123]

Awesome replies.. You all helped me realize what I was doing wrong. I really appreciate all of your responses and I'm very grateful...

@Kaushik-

I agree with you.. I should have gone over pathoma again sooner instead of having a big gap in the middle.

Like everyone suggested, I am planning to go over Pathoma again subject wise this time using FA instead of going over the entire book altogether as I already did that 2x. Hopefully I get good results on my next NBME.

I'm mainly using FA / Uworld / Pathoma and using BRS physio, BRS anatomy, HY neuro as supplements. After I'm done with Uworld I plan to do URx as I now know most of the answers to Uworld. I redo the wrong questions after going over the explanations.

@Transposony-

Thank you for your suggestion, but I'm afraid of adding any more materials to my current prep materials as I have not even finished the materials I'm going over right now. Otherwise, it will take even longer for me to get done.

One quick question, I have Kaplan 2010 or 2011 physio videos with Dr. Fischer. I was thinking about going over them for physio instead of using BRS physio. Do you guys think that's a good idea?

 

[Brain Bucket]

Lol. These guys are being way too nice. I'm going to paraphrase Myx and Trans ... You don't know your pathophys or path. Simple. You need something more comprehensive. Doing pathoma over isn't going to help you. They've already mentioned the gold standards for path - BRS and RR. That's what you should have done in the first place, supplemented with more comprehensive materials of your choice.

 

[Transposony]

@Transposony-

Thank you for your suggestion, but I'm afraid of adding any more materials to my current prep materials as I have not even finished the materials I'm going over right now. Otherwise, it will take even longer for me to get done.

One quick question, I have Kaplan 2010 or 2011 physio videos with Dr. Fischer. I was thinking about going over them for physio instead of using BRS physio. Do you guys think that's a good idea?

I am not suggesting adding more material but using different material instead of the one you have already used (which clearly has not helped much). Also, I did not suggest that you you go over Goljan/Robbins etc cover to cover. The best strategy in your case is to only read the topics you were found to be weak on the QBank from Goljan/Robbins etc. The great advantage of Goljan over everything else is the integration with other subjects which is tested on the exam.
FA does not help in learning the basics. FA/Pathoma as the only source is only good for people who has strong basics.
A crude analogy being that you can give tons of Carbs/Fat/Protein to someone with Vitamin/mineral deficiency or vice versa but they won't do much good. So, work on what you are lacking!

Secondly, Videos can never be a substitute to a review text. They are more of a supplement material to the text to get a better understanding unless you have very good basics.

You have to get out of your comfort zone but at the end of the day it's your call.
Good luck!

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

Lol. These guys are being way too nice. I'm going to paraphrase Myx and Trans ... You don't know your pathophys or path. Simple. You need something more comprehensive. Doing pathoma over isn't going to help you. They've already mentioned the gold standards for path - BRS and RR. That's what you should have done in the first place, supplemented with more comprehensive materials of your choice.

I respectfully disagree. I think the gold standard has shifted over from RR to Pathoma over the past couple of years. RR was the gold standard before Pathoma came into existence, but I think it's in 2nd place now. If I were OP, I would just keep reviewing Pathoma until I have it down solid. Don't get me wrong. RR is great. But it's also a lot more detailed than Pathoma. It's better, IMHO, to know the concepts and basics of pathology well instead of overwhelming yourself with details, especially when you're struggling with a topic. Pathoma is particularly good at emphasizing concepts and big-picture understanding. It's also much less time-consuming than going through RR, allowing you to make multiple passes over the material in the same amount of time it takes to go through RR once. Just my $0.02. YMMV.

 

[Transposony]

I respectfully disagree. I think the gold standard has shifted over from RR to Pathoma over the past couple of years.YMMV.

Only for people with solid grasp of basics The same way FA is the gold standard for people who already have a solid knowledge of basics.
Don't get me wrong, Pathoma is great but as far as OP is considered you can't ignore the elephant in the room.
There is no first or second review book as it all depends on how much background knowledge you have and finding out your weak areas and working on them using whichever review book suits you best. Everything else is just blind men and an elephant.
YMMV says it all!

 

[Brain Bucket]

I respectfully disagree. I think the gold standard has shifted over from RR to Pathoma over the past couple of years. RR was the gold standard before Pathoma came into existence, but I think it's in 2nd place now. If I were OP, I would just keep reviewing Pathoma until I have it down solid. Don't get me wrong. RR is great. But it's also a lot more detailed than Pathoma. It's better, IMHO, to know the concepts and basics of pathology well instead of overwhelming yourself with details, especially when you're struggling with a topic. Pathoma is particularly good at emphasizing concepts and big-picture understanding. It's also much less time-consuming than going through RR, allowing you to make multiple passes over the material in the same amount of time it takes to go through RR once. Just my $0.02. YMMV.

Well stated.

Have you read the 4th edition of RR? I'm using it for patho now and it doesn't seem to be all that detailed. I don't know about the 3rd, since I haven't read that, but the 4th touches upon some important concepts of patho/pathophys which I find myself constantly looking up in Pathophys texts - all of which seem pretty high yield to me - and which I see come up over and over on the qbanks. I find that pathoma is good for two things - an initial introduction, i.e., it's great to watch the videos before you start a block - and a final review, which helps consolidate the various concepts you've studied. For a subject as vast and high yield as Pathology I still think something a little more comprehensive is warranted, especially if you're having trouble with the subject.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

Only for people with solid grasp of basics The same way FA is the gold standard for people who already have a solid knowledge of basics.
there is no first or second review book as it all depends on how much background knowledge you have and finding out your weak areas and working on them using whichever review book suits you best. Everything else is just blind men and an elephant.
YMMV says it all!

I agree that you need to work on your weak areas using whatever resource works for you. I'm just saying that Pathoma is much better at conveying those important concepts and giving you a solid foundation in pathology, especially for someone who's never seen pathology before or is struggling with it, than RR is. Pathoma, IMHO, is much more friendly when learning pathology.

Ultimately, like you and others have said, you have to go with whatever resource works best for you. It doesn't matter if someone says X is the greatest thing ever -- if X doesn't work for you, don't waste time on it and move on to a different resource that does work for you. I'm just giving my opinion on Pathoma since, for the most part, it was the sole resource I (and many others) have used.

Have you read the 4th edition of RR? I'm using it for patho now and it doesn't seem to be all that detailed. I don't know about the 3rd, since I haven't read that, but the 4th touches upon some important concepts of patho/pathophys which I find myself constantly looking up in Pathophys texts - all of which seem pretty high yield to me - and which I see come up over and over on the qbanks. I find that pathoma is good for two things - an initial introduction, i.e., it's great to watch the videos before you start a block - and a final review, which helps consolidate the various concepts you've studied. For a subject as vast and high yield as Pathology I still think something a little more comprehensive is warranted, especially if you're having trouble with the subject.

That's a good point, actually. No, I used the 3rd edition when I used it last year. I was done with Step 1 by the time the 4th edition came out and I have heard significant changes have been made. So, perhaps I should withhold judgment until I look at the new edition as well.

Different strategies work well for different people. If RR works better for you than Pathoma, stick with RR. The OP has to decide what works best for him/her and it doesn't matter what you or I found to be most helpful for ourselves. One of the things I see again and again is that many different strategies can lead to the same end-product in med school -- there's no single, one-size-fits-all wonder strategy! Anyways, this was a good discussion overall. Best of luck to the OP.

 

[Transposony]

I agree that you need to work on your weak areas using whatever resource works for you. I'm just saying that Pathoma is much better at conveying those important concepts and giving you a solid foundation in pathology, especially for someone who's never seen pathology before or is struggling with it, than RR is. Pathoma, IMHO, is much more friendly when learning pathology.

Ultimately, like you and others have said, you have to go with whatever resource works best for you. It doesn't matter if someone says X is the greatest thing ever -- if X doesn't work for you, don't waste time on it and move on to a different resource that does work for you. I'm just giving my opinion on Pathoma since, for the most part, it was the sole resource I (and many others) have used.

I absolutely agree with you on Pathoma but you can't ignore the elephant in the room i.e. OP has already gone through it twice without much to show for it.
All I am saying is that Pathoma has not worked for the OP and it might be a good idea to use other resources for his weak areas but at the end of the day it's his call depending on how much time/resources he is willing to spend.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

I absolutely agree with you on Pathoma but you can't ignore the elephant in the room i.e. OP has already gone through it twice without much to show for it.
All I am saying is that Pathoma has not worked for the OP and it might be a good idea to use other resources for his weak areas but at the end of the day it's his call depending on how much time/resources he is willing to spend.

I would normally agree with you, but I feel the reason it didn't work for OP was because there was a 2-month gap between his/her first and second passes of the material. At least for me, even if I read Robbins, if I put that long of a gap between passes, I'm fairly certain I would not retain information well. That's the main reason I'm pushing for Pathoma -- because of that large gap in-between, we don't know whether Pathoma truly didn't work for OP. Does that reasoning make sense? I completely agree with your last statement -- it's ultimately the OP's call re: what resource to pursue. He knows himself best and what study strategies work well for him.

 

[Transposony]

I would normally agree with you, but I feel the reason it didn't work for OP was because there was a 2-month gap between his/her first and second passes of the material. At least for me, even if I read Robbins, if I put that long of a gap between passes, I'm fairly certain I would not retain information well. That's the main reason I'm pushing for Pathoma -- because of that large gap in-between, we don't know whether Pathoma truly didn't work for OP. Does that reasoning make sense? I completely agree with your last statement -- it's ultimately the OP's call re: what resource to pursue. He knows himself best and what study strategies work well for him.

Absolutely. Let's wish OP all the best.

 

[shigella123]

Thanks guys for all of your valuable advice!

I have started going over path subject wise using patho+other supplements and also I'm currently going over Physio BRS instead of Kaplan vids to work on my weaknesses. So, I am not ignoring the big *elephant* in my room, I'm going to take good care of him. lool... Also, I'm not he.

Ok, back to the books.

Thanks again!

 

[Transposony]

. Also, I'm not he.

My Apologies Ma'am.😀

 

[Lydian]

I went over pathoma 2 times already. I have retained some of the information, but I'm still weak in it. First time I watched all of the videos while annotating in the book and second time, 2 months later, just watched the videos with the book. I did questions and I'm still weak in path. I'm getting so frustrated with myself. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Other people go over it 1 time and they are good to go and here I'm still struggling even after going over it 2 times...

Should I be continuously going over it again and again until I get it?

That's a shame, step 1 is mostly path.