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?

Summary of Discussions

Charles D. Aring, MD

Arch Neurol. 1967;17(6):577-579.

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

A summary report such as this must come as an anticlimax after the stimulating talks reported from this conference. My discussions with some of you indicate that you want practical results, though implementation is what we heard least about in the groups discussing predoctoral and postdoctoral clinical training. How to achieve the suggestions brought forward by many of you, especially Paul Sanazaro in his stimulating address on innovations, must depend considerably upon local conditions: the capabilities of students and faculties, the facilities, and the budget. It is impossible to overemphasize the critical importance of men of good will and compassion in any reordering for the benefit of student and house officer. Like many generals, we soon get out of date, yet we remain in power. We are fitted best to fight the last war.

If the student's education is to be looked upon as a continuum, we should become interested . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Cincinnati

From the Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and the Cincinnati General Hospital, Ohio.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication May 17, 1967; accepted May 31.

Read before the Proceedings of the National Conference on Education in the Neurological Sciences, White Sulphur Springs, WVa, Nov 16, 1966.

Individual reprints are not available.

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