[Skip to Navigation]
April 1947


Arch Ophthalmol. 1947;37(4):541-542. doi:10.1001/archopht.1947.00890220551016

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


I was very much interested in Dr. Cogan's article on the teaching of basic sciences in ophthalmology.

The outline is that of a truly basic course and is more comprehensive in the fundamentals than is usual in such courses. Any university that offers similar studies will be delighted with the outline presented. The division of hours is somewhat like that given at Washington University School of Medicine.

Of particular value is the apparent participation of the student in the laboratory work. Not only would twelve weeks of purely didactic teaching be unbearable, but the material would be poorly absorbed. It is only by delving into subjects with hands and eyes, as well as ears, that true understanding is gained and facts and theories are digested sufficiently for their retention.

My criticism of a purely basic course that does not include pathology and refraction is that it does not prepare a

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
Add or change institution