The curriculum evaluation by students was introduced into the two-weeks clinical curriculum of fifth years students at Saga Medical School, Department of Anesthesiology. The evaluation form is consisted of forty questions with the eleven figures from -5 to +5. These questionaries were divided into seven parts and covered instructors' evaluation and the minute course evaluation. This evaluation was done anonymously at the end of the two-weeks clinical course in Anesthesiology.
The analysis was done as follows: 1) divided up into the positive group, the neutral group and the negative group; 2) difined the positive rate, the negative rate and the effective rate; 3) presented these rates visually.
The result runs as follows: 1) the effective rate is proportional to the interaction between instructors and students; 2) a quick feedback can be done on instructors.
Finally, the important thing for medical education is not only curriculum but the interaction between instructors and students. In this sense, this trial in Saga Medical School is significant for medical education.

When serious emergency patients come to a 3rd-level emergency hospital, they are able to obtain optimal medical treatment for their condition. However, the emergency room of general hospitals are extremely crowded with many kinds of patients, ranging from 1st-to 3rd-level emergencies. Thus, a good training program in triage is necessary for emergency medicine doctors because of the risk of inappropriate management of patients.
In this study, we examined the number of 2nd-and 3rd-level emergency patients who came to our emergency room initially as walk-in 1st-level emergency patients in 1991 and 1992. Our results indicate that the education for emergency medicine doctors needs to cover a wide range of medical fields dealing with 1st-to 3rd-level emergency patients, and that ideal training in emergency medicine must be organized in hospitals that accept 1st-to 3rd-level emergency patients.

We conducted a follow-up analysis of entrance examinations and premedical and medical academic records of students entering medical school after a general screening from 1979 through 1989 and those of students accepted on the basis of recommendations since 1985. To evaluate their academic records all students of each year were divided into five groups on the basis of entrance examination results, and the mean academic rank of the highest 20% and lowest 20% of students were compared. In premedical subjects (i.e., general education and basic sciences), the mean rank of the highest 20% were as low as the average rank, whereas that of the lowest 20% were nearly as high as the average rank. A similar tendency was observed with respect to medical subjects. The average academic rank of students accepted on the basis of recommendations was higher than that of students accepted on the basis of entrance examination.
In a follow-up study, greater insight for the evaluation of academic records was obtained when 100 students were divided into five groups and the highest and lowest 20% were compared than when all students were analyzed as a single group. Finally, all students who graduated in 6 years passed the National Physician's License Examination, whereas the success rate varied among students who took longer than 6 years to graduate.