This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • 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 JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Robert A. Schwartz, MD, PhD
New Jersey Medical School Newark

JAMA. 1984;252(21):2957.

	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.—

The recent attack on the Flexner Report of 1910 criticizes many things, including Flexner's eliteness and the actual accomplishments long attributed to Abraham Flexner and his most famous manuscript.¹ It may be true, as King maintains, that the Flexner Report of 1910 did not result in fundamental changes in American medicine but rather only delineated conditions that were also observed by others before him and that were, in fact, being rectified at the time. Nevertheless, his assault on Flexner and his contributions is a bit overzealous.

Much of Flexner's work, as he himself noted, was done by him as a nonphysician educator who relied on analysis of a given medical school's educational environment rather than its statistics.^2,3 Flexner would evaluate an institution to see how the dynamics of the educational process were achieved; King would prefer that he look at how many anatomy professors were . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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