This Article  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David E. Eifrig, MD; Richard D. Cunningham, MD; Phil A. Aitken, MD; Raymond E. Records, MD; John C. Barber, MD; John W. Gittinger, Jr, MD
Chapel Hill, NC

Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108(10):1378-1379.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—In 1989 a questionnaire was sent to the heads of 110 ophthalmology units who are members of the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology. One hundred eight replies described the status of ophthalmic education in American medical schools.

Seven schools had no curriculum in ophthalmology. Most other schools have ophthalmologists who may teach basic science courses, clinical transition courses, and ophthalmoscopy labs and conduct structured rotations for students in their third or fourth years. Curriculum teaching hours vary widely and goals range from teaching students to be primary eye care physicians to teaching them to simply recognize and refer all eye problems. Many of the curricula that do exist have ambitious programs that include large numbers of teachers. Others have only a few devoted faculty members who share their time and patients with interested students.

Despite our effort to teach ophthalmology it is likely that only about . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?