Editorial

Abstract

It seems to the student of medicine that arguments about the method by which his education can be accomplished with most effect, will never cease. Thus he is perpetually hearing, from this source or from that, that one system is better and another worse, one more and another less suited to turn a doctor loose upon an unsuspecting and at times positively unfortunate public. The system of teaching students in small tutorial groups has many advantages, and the existence or an intimate student-teacher relationship will always rank high amongst them. This system of education which is practised in a number of English universities is in marked contrast to the Scottish university system which consists of a formal lecture course, accompanied by clinical instruction in scarcely less formal cliniques. The lecture course tends to be authoritative and up to date since it is usually shared out amongst a number of lecturers, each dealing with that aspect of the whole subject in which he is specially interested. Further, in contrast to the Tutorial system the course can be carefully planned in advance, and each aspect treated in due perspective since the student cannot divert his teacher’s attention from the main stream of thought. None the less it must be admitted that there are many students who find the process of expressing their own views before an intelligent audience, or equally of criticising the expressed views of their fellows, an instructive and a stimulating exercise. It is of course true that when in clinique, the student is often allowed, sometimes even encouraged, to discuss his teacher’s views in a critical fashion, but, unfortunately, time is limited and the cliniques manifestly overcrowded. Here is a deficiency in our education for which the Royal Medical Society attempts to compensate, and it is our claim that we provide facilities for the student to become a more able speaker and a more critical thinker.