have they caught on to goljan?

[westernmed007]

Have the boards people caught onto goljan at all? Wouldn't you think they modify some of their questions? Can anyone comment on this?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Law2Doc]

Have the boards people caught onto goljan at all? Wouldn't you think they modify some of their questions? Can anyone comment on this?

The boards have been evolving over the years. Thus if you are talking about goljan materials that have been around for a decade, then yes, they have become dated and are likely no longer quite the panacea they used to be. Some of what was high yield back then no longer is, and the USMLE has gotten further away from buzz words. However if you are talking about Goljan books that have come out recently, I would hope they would be updated to account for current testing trends.

 

[medhacker]

What evidence is there that old Goljan resources are no longer high yield?

I find it hard to believe when you hear of FMGs who used: FA, BRS, Kaplan and Goljan, Goljan, Goljan, and they get 230+

 

[Law2Doc]

I find it hard to believe when you hear of FMGs who used: FA, BRS, Kaplan and Goljan, Goljan, Goljan, and they get 230+

Well for each such person, there are an awful lot of FMGs who used those resources and didn't get close to 230+. They just tend to be less vocal.

 

[medhacker]

Well for each such person, there are an awful lot of FMGs who used those resources and didn't get close to 230+. They just tend to be less vocal.

Maybe,

but what evidence is there, apart from the testimonies, and reasonings, that the old G. resources are no longer high yield?

 

[Law2Doc]

Maybe,

but what evidence is there, apart from the testimonies, and reasonings, that the old G. resources are no longer high yield?

I don't know what evidence you expect there to be besides personal testimonies. This isn't something anyone is ever going to do a study of. All you can ever know is opinions of folks who used the resources.

 

[medhacker]

I don't know what evidence you expect there to be besides personal testimonies. This isn't something anyone is ever going to do a study of. All you can ever know is opinions of folks who used the resources.

Then for all practical purposes, the jury is out. There seems to be testimonies of both arguments and nothing definitive.

 

[jiy76]

the content covered on the old goljan audios is still high yield and still frequently tested. Goljan just makes things easier to remember and understand he doesnt throw random facts at u to memorize...that would be pointless and over time would be useless. The reason why people still use the audios even though they are almost a decade old is the fact that path is still path..u still have to know the same material...there are only so many ways the boards can ask u a question..goljan helps u understand the material so no matter how they ask it u should be ready for it....the initial question posted here makes it sound like goljan is giving us top secret material that no one knows about. He gives examples of how topics were tested in the past. The boards likely wont ask it the same way again but u can be sure they will still ask questions on the same topics. Either way goljan covers all the material so he remains high yield.

 

[Law2Doc]

Then for all practical purposes, the jury is out. There seems to be testimonies of both arguments and nothing definitive.

It's hard to deny that the boards have changed over the years, while old resources cannot.

 

[Law2Doc]

He gives examples of how topics were tested in the past. The boards likely wont ask it the same way again but u can be sure they will still ask questions on the same topics. Either way goljan covers all the material so he remains high yield.

The above bolded is why the resource is no longer as good as it once was, hence dated. Sure, path is still path and will be tested. But how the specific topics are covered is pretty important when trying to answer a question. When you are told how something was tested in the past, that doesn't always mean you are going to be on the same page with respect to how it is tested presently. Which is why more current resources frequently serve you better.

 

[medhacker]

Goljan just makes things easier to remember and understand he doesnt throw random facts at u to memorize...that would be pointless and over time would be useless. The reason why people still use the audios even though they are almost a decade old is the fact that path is still path..u still have to know the same material...there are only so many ways the boards can ask u a question..goljan helps u understand the material so no matter how they ask it u should be ready for it....the initial question posted here makes it sound like

I think what I bolded above shows why there are, still today, positive testimonies about old goljan stuff.

It's hard to deny that the boards have changed over the years, while old resources cannot.

Sure, they "may" have changed, but there is no evidence that they have changed to a degree that would render old goljan resources low yield.

 

[Law2Doc]

Sure, they "may" have changed, but there is no evidence that they have changed to a degree that would render old goljan resources low yield.

Your focus on "evidence" on this topic is fruitless. Whether a resource is less useful today is a subjective matter.

 

[medhacker]

Your focus on "evidence" on this topic is fruitless. Whether a resource is less useful today is a subjective matter.

And that's the take home point. As far as we can tell, one claim or the other is merely subjective. Therefore, I think calling for evidence was fruitful.

Op, maybe they have caught on, maybe they have not. Hard to tell from where we are.

My personal belief, even if they have, there's only so may ways they can ask a question, and Goljan excels at making it easy to understand and stick, just on that basis I subjectively think they are high yield. If using them, makes you understand the material better and remember it more, and in addition, you believe there's only so many ways they can ask pathophys, then it will be high yield for you too.

 

[jiy76]

if u think any resource, whether it came out in 1999 or last week, is going to tell u exactly how the boards are goin to ask a question...u are in for a rude awakening. The best resources out there take concepts and make them easier to understand so that u can answer any kind of question on that topic. Thats why again goljan is still a great resource and high yield for the boards.

 

[Law2Doc]

there's only so many ways they can ask pathophys

You'd be surprised. But what I'm saying is that the way the old Goljan resources say they will ask the question no longer is usually the case. Sure, knowing the topic better is helpful. But knowing what the old resources say they will definitely ask and how, no longer is. Hence dated. The resource isn't garbage. But it isn't the home run it probably once was.

 

[medhacker]

You'd be surprised. But what I'm saying is that the way the old Goljan resources say they will ask the question no longer is usually the case. Sure, knowing the topic better is helpful. But knowing what the old resources say they will definitely ask and how, no longer is. Hence dated. The resource isn't garbage. But it isn't the home run it probably once was.

That's a good point. But even that is hard to know, as you say, it is subjective. We can only presume one way or the other. We could presume they [boards people] are no longer asking the Qs Goljan used to say they would ask. But who knows? maybe they have not.

I found the topic interesting for I would be the first one interested in knowing for sure if the boards have "caught on". Who would want to be studying from material the boards have systematically singled out, right? but unless someone can bring in some insider scoop or something, I think it is one of those things you can only presume one way or the other.

 

[jiy76]

medhacker seems to be the only one who gets it..as someone who has taken the boards and used goljan and done well, I can tell u goljan is as useful today as he was back then. u aren't lookin at the big picture if u nitpick the old clues he gives in his audios and call them outdated.. Any question used on a previous administration is outdated...odds are u wont see a question on a topic that u heard from a friend or another resource ever even if they took the test last week. Understand what he is sayin and u will get the questions right.

 

[Taus]

if u think any resource, whether it came out in 1999 or last week, is going to tell u exactly how the boards are goin to ask a question...u are in for a rude awakening. The best resources out there take concepts and make them easier to understand so that u can answer any kind of question on that topic. Thats why again goljan is still a great resource and high yield for the boards.

right on the money....

 

[cyclohexanol]

For those who think goljan is outdated, please DON'T LISTEN TO HIM.

That is all.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

l2d's never been a big fan of evidence. He is a lawyer after all, so it's understandable. Someday when he posts his step 1 score, I'll decide how valuable his advice is.

 

[Law2Doc]

l2d's never been a big fan of evidence. He is a lawyer after all, so it's understandable. Someday when he posts his step 1 score, I'll decide how valuable his advice is.

Some of us are cautious about posting personal info to strangers on a public forum. If that means you don't care for my advice, that's fine. There is value to having differences of opinions on this board and no need to agree with everyone; the OP's question is an opinion kind of question and calls for healthy debate, not a specific answer. Let's keep the personal attacks/character assassinations off the board please.

I am a big fan of evidence, but only in places where there actually could be some. Some posters say "show me the evidence" in cases where there simply cannot be any, and feel that is a winning argument, but in cases like this one, where whether a resource is still helpful is almost totally going to be a matter of opinion (because people don't study from a single resource, because scores are not public, and because everyone takes a different test variation), and further, really not just a current opinion, but a comparison of opinions today versus those a decade ago, it is really an exercise in futility and hence a false diversion from the actual discussion. How do you imagine evidence is going to be found here? Who is going to do a study on whether a decade old resource is still as valuable as it once was? Why would so many companies continue to update and revise their board review materials anually if they were not things that ever become outdated? Again, I'm not saying the older resources are garbage, but that they probably were a whole lot more valuable when they came out than now. To me, that is the definition of being outdated. It simply does not hold the same value over time.

The boards have changed pretty significantly over the past decade. Talk to folks who took it a decade ago; it was a very different kind of test with different kinds of question, a lot more straightforward, more "one step" questions, and with rather different topic emphasis. And yes, the makers of the test are aware of many of the board review resources out there and have made changes to the test over the years to account for them, the most significant of which a few years back was to try to limit use of "buzz words" on the test that would key you in on the correct answer without requiring you to reason through it. If you know a subject cold, that's great, but if you focus in on the decade old suggestions of topics you are "sure to see" and how they will likely be asked, you are probably off target. A decade ago you would be on target. Hence less useful today aka somewhat outdated. There is nothing wrong with using this kind of material in your spare time. But it's not the way you want to spend your quality study time IMHO. And opinion (not evidence) is all you ever get on this kind of topic.

 

[viostorm]

Have the boards people caught onto goljan at all? Wouldn't you think they modify some of their questions? Can anyone comment on this?

If you are looking for someone to tell you what is on the test, then don't do goljan.

If you are looking for someone to help you UNDERSTAND medicine then use goljan. He has forever changed my understanding of pathophysiology. Many people who used him took the test as recently as 3-4 months ago and did well.

 

[Law2Doc]

Many people who used him took the test as recently as 3-4 months ago and did well.

There is probably another, larger, less vocal, camp who used him as well, though. If you scroll down the page, there are a ton of threads on this board that say if you use XYZ resource (not just Goljan), you are definitely going to score eg 240+. Truth of the matter is most folks won't, regardless of the resource. And the pass rate of non-US students, many of whom seem anecdotally to be more likely to be using this kind of resource (based on a cursory glance at eg the valueMD site and the like) as a significant portion of their study plan, is simply not as high as US students.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

And the pass rate of non-US students, many of whom seem anecdotally to be more likely to be using this kind of resource (based on a cursory glance at eg the valueMD site and the like) as a significant portion of their study plan, is simply not as high as US students.

The non-US student performance on step 1 is a rather poor way to judge Goljan, assuming you are correct that it is a resource used more often by FMGs. These students may have had a poorer quality of initial med school education (review materials don't make the best learning tools), may have less proficiency in English, may be poor standardized test takers (thats why some didnt goto US allo schools in the first place), or others simply lack the intelligence to do well.

The way Goljan makes connections and advises students to integrate material is probably even better for today's multi-step questions. Goljan's advice on particular high-yield likely-to-appear topics may not be exactly germane for today's test takers, but can you really say that his review of pathology in general isn't?

 

[Medikit]

Yes, yes they have. They've caught on and Goljan's book and notes are now meaningless. They pretty much made sure that nothing he talks about is on the exam. The USMLE exam now covers weapons and armor of the 12th century.

 

[avishkar1984]

The non-US student performance on step 1 is a rather poor way to judge Goljan, assuming you are correct that it is a resource used more often by FMGs. These students may have had a poorer quality of initial med school education (review materials don't make the best learning tools), may have less proficiency in English, may be poor standardized test takers (thats why some didnt goto US allo schools in the first place), or others simply lack the intelligence to do well.

this is infuriating!!!
u cannot generalize that all fmgs recieve substandard education.
Most of the people in India(or in Delhi atleast, if not the whole of the country) DO NOT use goljan at all and they still manage a pretty high score( and by high i mean high; >90-95)

infact i never knew about goljan till i saw his name on the forums and mind you the quality of education in the med schools in india is excellent.
i doubt if med students in the US get to see as many patients as we do in India. not that its their fault or nething but i'm just making a point.

goljan is a great book to read no doubt but if u read it after having done biochemistry and physiology it seems more like a revision.
but i have to confess that there are smthingz mentioned in goljan that i did not find newhere else. this book really clarifies all the doubts which could crop up.

oh, and one more thing
US med students can still get away with a relatively low score say smthing like 85-90 but in India getting an 85 means u r no where.i'll cite an example here; one of my seniors got an 82 in his step1.he just dropped the idea of going on. so now he is preparing for the post grad entrance exams for india.

so its a lot tougher for the fmgs.
all i want to say is u shdn't underestimate other people and u cant have a predujiced outlook towards the rest of the world

 

[soonereng]

i doubt if med students in the US get to see as many patients as we do in India. not that its their fault or nething but i'm just making a point.

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but in the US we take Step 1 after our first two years where there isn't that much patient contact, and I can't see how patient contact would be all that helpful for this exam really.

 

[medhacker]

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but in the US we take Step 1 after our first two years where there isn't that much patient contact, and I can't see how patient contact would be all that helpful for this exam really.

I don't think he says it in terms of the step 1, I think he mentions it in the context of the claim that "IMGs receive a lesser preparation" to what he argues "if that's the case we see more pt's than U.S. students, so who is really a better prepared physician"...

 

[QuantumMechanic]

so its a lot tougher for the fmgs.
all i want to say is u shdn't underestimate other people and u cant have a predujiced outlook towards the rest of the world

of course some FMGs are very smart and blow the USMLE out of the water and land great residencies here. I guess you find it infuriating that FMGs have a lower step 1 average than american grads????? Tough luck, but I explained my reasoning. Remember that FMGs include Americans who were underqualified or couldn't get into American medical schools. So I'm really bashing Americans too with my statement.

 

[avishkar1984]

its not abt americans vs. the non americans
its abt the quality of education in the US vs other countries
i do agree that US has the latest technology but the clinical skills one learns is only with experience and this experience can be gained newhere with sufficient exposure to patients.it doesnt require u to hv the latest technology to develop a clinical knack.
i cannot comment upon the medical schools in other countries but i can safely say that most of the med schools in India are pretty good in this regard.

 

[soonereng]

I don't think he says it in terms of the step 1, I think he mentions it in the context of the claim that "IMGs receive a lesser preparation" to what he argues "if that's the case we see more pt's than U.S. students, so who is really a better prepared physician"...

Again, it's just a goofy argument. We're talking about boards (and I was specifically thinking step 1 but throw in step 2 if you like as well). If IMGs do indeed get less basic science preparation (not saying that they do), seeing more patients isn't really going to help make up for that deficit.

 

[SoCuteMD]

The Step 1 forum is not the place to discuss the merits of medical education in America vs. that in other countries. Please keep to the topic at hand, which is Goljan. Since the topic is Goljan, I must also remind you that the only LEGALLY available Goljan materials are those which are sold in bookstores. Goljan audio is a copyright violation and should not be sold or distributed.

Thanks for keeping it on topic, guys!
SoCuteMD

 

[ertugrul]

Have the boards people caught onto goljan at all? Wouldn't you think they modify some of their questions? Can anyone comment on this?

I don't think they need to modify due to Goljan (they probably changed questions, say, ten times since the famous recordings were made though). I'm also not sure that the aim of the question-maker is not fooling students; it's licensing examination and about ~90 of the students (from states) passes. If they have to change questions, they probably do this because of the First Aid. I'm pretty sure they always change or modify questions but not due to old good Goljan

 

[osli]

Some posters say "show me the evidence" in cases where there simply cannot be any, and feel that is a winning argument, but in cases like this one, where whether a resource is still helpful is almost totally going to be a matter of opinion (because people don't study from a single resource, because scores are not public, and because everyone takes a different test variation), and further, really not just a current opinion, but a comparison of opinions today versus those a decade ago, it is really an exercise in futility and hence a false diversion from the actual discussion.

Holy run-on sentence Batman!

 

[H_Caulfield]

Holy run-on sentence Batman!

HAHAHA...yea, whoever wrote it was trying to show off his or her literary prowess. Really it just ends up looking like someone's got their pants on too tight.

 

[Law2Doc]

If they have to change questions, they probably do this because of the First Aid. I'm pretty sure they always change or modify questions but not due to old good Goljan

They don't change questions specific to a particular resource, but they have changed the form of questions enormously -- moving from straightforward, one step questions and use of buzz words to multistep, mixed discipline type questions with less use of buzz words. The question base is constantly evolving, and they work in experimental questions in each test which may or may not find their way into the graded portion of the test in subsequent years. Which is why books like FA and RR get updated every year or so -- this is an evolving test and the resources ideally need to keep pace with that evolution. Thus something a decade old is going to be less targeted to the current test than something that comes out this year. So I agree, they aren't focusing on Goljan when they make up the test, but the utility of such older resources simply won't be what it once was.

 

[osli]

Seems like the goljan audio might be a good way to start an early review/preview in preparation for more focused study. I don't think I'd rely heavily on it in the month of preparation before the exam, but for something relatively easy to do in the fall/winter it might be perfect.

 

[miss medulla]

quantum mechanic i disagree with, before you generalize about FMG americans' maybee u should consider the chance that what they did could be smarter! i started medical school when i was 18. i wanted to start right away so i went to europe. If you call this 'Substandard' than so be it. end of discussion. Ones own sacrifices and hardwork should be respected ,not shredded! shame on you.
As for Gojan, i think its a good start at the beginning of your studies to get the BIg Pic. I have a friend who took step 1 the first year goljan was lecturing i guess back in 2000. it gave him that little extra edge on the exam. But we had our edge too......usmleworld. every 2 years i think this little'extra' changes with the times But you Just have to keep up to date.........thats medicine!

 

[y2janitor]

I had 2 or 3 questions that Goljan stated "were on the boards" during his audio. You shouldn't bank on those though.

 

[medhacker]

I had 2 or 3 questions that Goljan stated "were on the boards" during his audio. You shouldn't bank on those though.

Thank you!

all other is nothing more than

 

[Skills of House]

Holy run-on sentence Batman!

I love batman puns!...but I think multiply compounded sentences would be more accurate. I didn't read where it was a run-on; it was just so long that I forgot the original subject before finishing the sentence

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I love batman puns!...but I think multiply compounded sentences would be more accurate. I didn't read where it was a run-on; it was just so long that I forgot the original subject before finishing the sentence

Lawyers like long sentences. I've read some court cases where a sentence took up a good 3/4s of the page.

 

[Law2Doc]

I love batman puns!...but I think multiply compounded sentences would be more accurate. I didn't read where it was a run-on; it was just so long that I forgot the original subject before finishing the sentence

I don't think it was technically run on. But I agree I made it way too long. Sorry.

 

[osli]

Nah... I actually double checked before I posted that and figured it wasn't technically a run-on. But I couldn't help myself.

 

[miss medulla]

Okay to answer the question : yes ,goljan (audio ) helped me on only 3-4 exam questions and yes , i was expecting alot more. as far as Step 2 goes ,i decided not to listen to them . if ur at the gym and ur feeling highly motivated, go for it , otherwise keep reading and stoptrying to find the easy way out

 

[Terpskins99]

I mean, wow... if you had a test that had zero First Aid information on it... you'd be screwed!

lol... come on, people. There are only so many ways to skin a cat. Words to live by.

You study all the high yield topics first and work your way down. Pathology is high yield. There you go. And no, you don't need Goljan.

 

[Law2Doc]

I mean, wow... if you had a test that had zero First Aid information on it... you'd be screwed!

I think this misses the point. FA incorporates changes every year. The goljan tape was a bootleg tape from many years ago that has never been updated or legally released. Thus as the test evolves, things that don't evolve with it can become outdated. Things that are revamped annually (eg. First Aid) won't become outdated. Doesn't mean any resource won't miss the boat on a particular set of test questions in a given year. But when they do, an updated resource will make changes for the next edition. A non-updated resource cannot. Thus some of what has become high yield in recent years may not be adequately covered or emphasized in an older resource.

 

[medhacker]

I think this misses the point. FA incorporates changes every year. The goljan tape was a bootleg tape from many years ago that has never been updated or legally released. Thus as the test evolves, things that don't evolve with it can become outdated. Things that are revamped annually (eg. First Aid) won't become outdated. Doesn't mean any resource won't miss the boat on a particular set of test questions in a given year. But when they do, an updated resource will make changes for the next edition. A non-updated resource cannot. Thus some of what has become high yield in recent years may not be adequately covered or emphasized in an older resource.

This makes a long series of assumptions, for example:

a) The test is evolving every year:
There is no official statement from the test makers to conclude this. There is no definite proof that this is happening on a yearly basis. We would like to assume that it is. The fact that FA and other test resources update yearly are not conclusive proof either - one could argue FA, et al are updating based on basic principles of our capitalistic economy - Don't update , don't sell!

b) Updated resources reflex test updates:
Again, no proof. There is no accounting or disclosure by the test makers so that we can with certainty claim that "updated resources" have updates that reflex the alleged exam changes.

We can reasonably presume that the test makers are in fact making changes to the exam. For example, many students give testimonies that the USMLE is no longer using the so called buzzwords. However, while this may be some evidence that the USMLE has had changes over time - we have no knowledge of how often this is.


We are just left to presume on this topic...


Therefore, the fact that FA and others update yearly is not enough evidence that the USMLE test makers are also updating on a yearly basis.

 

[Law2Doc]

Therefore, the fact that FA and others update yearly is not enough evidence that the USMLE test makers are also updating on a yearly basis.

Fair enough, but even if the updates are less frequent than annual, it's safe to assume a more recently updated resource is going to try to incorporate what is currently high yield, while a non-updated resource cannot ever become better than the day it was created, and can only decline in value as changes (however frequently) are made.

 

[osli]

The worth of the bootleg audio is no longer in the "this is big time... this is on the boards..." stuff, but rather in having another mode with which to learn material that happens to be presented in a very approachable manner.