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

RAYMOND R. SUSKIND, MD

Arch Dermatol. 1966;93(5):522-526.

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

IN ORDER TO discuss intelligently the kinds of undergraduate teaching programs which are current in the United States and Canada at the second conference of the Association of Professors of Dermatology, it was necessary to gather information from each department regarding the character of the programs and the curricula. This information was solicited through a survey which was sent out to each department or division head several months prior to the meeting. The questionnaire elicited information regarding undergraduate teaching objectives, methods and materials of teaching, number of hours in each year, size of classes, support of teachers, methods of evaluation, facilities, and even attitudes of administration toward dermatology. From the 100 questionnaires which were sent out 92 were returned. A tabulation of these replies is presented below.

In 1961, Dr. Donald M. Pillsbury conducted a similar survey for the then newly organized Association of Professors of Dermatology, a discussion . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
PORTLAND, ORE

From the Department of Dermatology, University of Oregon Medical School, Portland, Ore.

Footnotes
Read before the Second Conference on Undergraduate Teaching in Dermatology of the Association of Professors of Dermatology, Chicago, April 30-May 2, 1965.

Reprint requests to University of Oregon Medical School, Portland, Ore 97201.

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