For the past half-century, whenever discussions of medical education have been undertaken, the basic reference has been to the Flexner Report of 1910.1 This extraordinary monograph, which consisted of a series of school-by-school site visit reports (Abraham Flexner alone traveled the entire nation to compile these individual characterizations), emphasized the need for university sponsorship of medical schools, the inactivation of proprietary workshops, and the development of curricula that were soundly rooted in the medical sciences of biochemistry, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. The German medical schools abroad and the schools at Johns Hopkins and Harvard were cited as the exemplary models. The impact of the report is well-known. Medical education in the United States changed drastically and the post-World War II expansion of medical research put the final touches on the Flexner recommendations, so that by 1960 all premium medical schools were constructed as he had outlined.
During the past
M.D.B. . The Carnegie Report and Future Planning for Internal Medicine. Arch Intern Med. 1971;127(2):314-316. doi:10.1001/archinte.1971.00310140142024