fundamental flaw of CA exam

[Guest guest]

There is a fundamental flaw in the design of the CA exam. I am not

sure if there is a mission statement associated with the exam, but it

would seem that the exam sets a minimum requirement for both the safe

and effective of acupuncture and herbology in CA.

 

That being said, I cannot help but wonder how many currently CA

licensed practitioners would pass the CA if they had to re-take (and

for those grandfathered in, take) the exam today...not tomorrow or

next week, no studying involved.

 

If currently licensed practitioners cannot pass the CA exam, cold,

then is it true that they are not practiticing both safe and effective

CM? I do not believe this to be the case. This is a serious flaw in

design of the test.

 

Not everyone wants to be a Giovanni robot. Nor does everyone want to

be a storage bin for miscellaneous trivia peculiar to individual

authors. Furthermore, " want " is not even an issue here. There is no

necessity for these things either.

 

If the CA exam is to stay in place, then the book list needs to be

modified. The test questions need to be re-written in order to test

knowledge on theory and practice - not trivia, not Giovanni's Golden

Word of the Highest, not anything that is peculiar to one particular

author.

 

Furthermore, if the CA exam is to stay in place, and if it is indeed a

marker of both safe and effective practice, then a random sample of

currently licensed CA practitioners should be chosen to take the exam,

for free and with not enough notice to study, each time the exam is

given. The scores of those practictioners should then be used to

adjust the scoring system for those taking the test in order to seek

licensure.

 

I am sure there are more ways in which to improve the process, but

this is all I have for now.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

I agree that the CA test should not be loaded with trivia from Dan &

Giovanni's texts. Dan himself has said that he would've approached the

writing of his book differently if he knew how it would be used in the

certification process. However, I don't agree with your stance that

licensed docs off the street should be able to pass the boards. If

attrition is a natural part of being distanced from a subject, does it not

stand to reason that we should set the bar high in the beginning? As time

passes, practitioners forget the details, but they (hopefully) don't forget

the lessons learned from having once mastered the details. We need high

standards in our field, & given the lax academic rigor of nearly(?) every

accredited school, I don't mind a tough milestone at the end of the rainbow.

Though I freely admit that licensure exams are a crappy measure, they do

measure at least SOME knowledge that has potential. I fully support

reviewing/revising the content of state & national exams, but not for one

second do I think that the average practitioner should be able to pass one

without preparation. The only " exam " they need to be able to pass is the

one they take every day in their treatment rooms, because that is the only

exam that reflects TCM as THEY practice it. But they have the right to

practice it because they jumped through the high hoops (giovanni prejudiced

as they may be).

 

Tim Sharpe

 

 

 

 

bcataiji [bcaom]

Friday, March 19, 2004 2:20 PM

 

fundamental flaw of CA exam

 

There is a fundamental flaw in the design of the CA exam. I am not sure if

there is a mission statement associated with the exam, but it would seem

that the exam sets a minimum requirement for both the safe and effective of

acupuncture and herbology in CA.

 

That being said, I cannot help but wonder how many currently CA licensed

practitioners would pass the CA if they had to re-take (and for those

grandfathered in, take) the exam today...not tomorrow or next week, no

studying involved.

 

If currently licensed practitioners cannot pass the CA exam, cold, then is

it true that they are not practiticing both safe and effective CM? I do not

believe this to be the case. This is a serious flaw in design of the test.

 

Not everyone wants to be a Giovanni robot. Nor does everyone want to be a

storage bin for miscellaneous trivia peculiar to individual authors.

Furthermore, " want " is not even an issue here. There is no necessity for

these things either.

 

If the CA exam is to stay in place, then the book list needs to be modified.

The test questions need to be re-written in order to test knowledge on

theory and practice - not trivia, not Giovanni's Golden Word of the Highest,

not anything that is peculiar to one particular author.

 

Furthermore, if the CA exam is to stay in place, and if it is indeed a

marker of both safe and effective practice, then a random sample of

currently licensed CA practitioners should be chosen to take the exam, for

free and with not enough notice to study, each time the exam is given. The

scores of those practictioners should then be used to adjust the scoring

system for those taking the test in order to seek licensure.

 

I am sure there are more ways in which to improve the process, but this is

all I have for now.

 

Brian C. Allen

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free

discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Tim Sharpe "

<listserve@d...> wrote:

 

> certification process. However, I don't agree with your stance that

> licensed docs off the street should be able to pass the boards. If

> attrition is a natural part of being distanced from a subject, does

it not

> stand to reason that we should set the bar high in the beginning?

As time

> passes, practitioners forget the details, but they (hopefully) don't

forget

 

I thought someone might take the suggestion in the manner that you

did. My point was that if the average practitioner cannot pass the

test, then the test is bad. If the test were geared towards standard

basic CM theory of physiology and pathophysiology, diagnosis,

treatment principles, etc., then there is no reason the average

practictioner should not pass the exam without studying.

 

The exam should test the basic entry level knowledge necessary to

practice safe and effective CM. It should not test trivia, minutia of

detail that can be easily referenced in textbooks, information

peculiar to one particular author, etc. (I know you agreed on this point).

 

In my opinion, there is no need for the exam to be difficult or

exclusionary. Not just anyone can sit for the exam. The person

generally has to graduate from an approved school. That in itself

requires much education and testing. For a school to be approved /

acredited also requires much evaluating, updating, re-evalutating,

etc. by third-party committees. The board exam at the end is just one

last test in a long system of checks and balances along the way. If

30% of the people are failing this CA exam, there is something

seriously wrong with the test. The is especially the case when people

are intentionally studying for the test, rather than for practice. I

do not believe that the fail rate speeks to something being wrong with

the schools.

 

 

> the lessons learned from having once mastered the details. We need high

> standards in our field, & given the lax academic rigor of nearly(?)

every

> accredited school, I don't mind a tough milestone at the end of the

rainbow.

> Though I freely admit that licensure exams are a crappy measure, they do

> measure at least SOME knowledge that has potential. I fully support

> reviewing/revising the content of state & national exams, but not

for one

> second do I think that the average practitioner should be able to

pass one

 

Rigor is not necessary for any subject matter. There are better and

worse ways to teach and better and worse ways to learn. If the

subjects are taught well and the students learn well, rigor never need

enter the equation. I am not saying that CA schools have found this

magic balance, but a call for " rigor " will not solve whatever

deficiencies that you perceive.

 

Furthermore, it is well known that the educationaly CM programs in the

pass were much, much less comprehensive. There are many practitioners

from such programs that passed the cA in the past when the

requirements were lower. Also, there are practitioners who have been

grandfathered in. Your call for " rigor " in todays programs really

makes all of those practitioners schooled in the " olden days " look

really deficient.

 

 

> without preparation. The only " exam " they need to be able to pass

is the

> one they take every day in their treatment rooms, because that is

the only

> exam that reflects TCM as THEY practice it. But they have the right to

> practice it because they jumped through the high hoops (giovanni

prejudiced

> as they may be).

 

The " right " that you mention is a legal right, not necessarily an

ethical, practical, or any other kind of right. In other words, if I

can start a safe an effective practice right now without having taken

the CA exam, then the only real world difference between me in my

practice and a student who just passed the exam and his practice would

be that his practice is legally sanctioned. The legal issue is a

reality that we have to deal with, but it holds absolutely no weight

when it comes to evaluating whether or not someone is a safe and

effective practitioner.

 

You are making my case for me when you say that the only exam that

current practitioners need to pass takes place in the treatment room.

I agree with you.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

bcataiji

Saturday, March 20, 2004 2:21 PM

 

Brian:

My point was that if the average practitioner cannot pass the test, then the

test is bad. If the test were geared towards standard basic CM theory of

physiology and pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment principles, etc., then

there is no reason the average practictioner should not pass the exam

without studying.

===============

Tim:

People remember what they use. People also tend to get themselves into

patterns. Did you ever see the Dead Poets Society where the students are

independetnly marching in the courtyard? Eventually they all end up

marching together in a consistent rhythm. Human beings tend to fall into

patterns in the same way. This isn't a bad thing, when you find what works

for you then you should do that. Everything else will begin to fade from

memory due to lack of reinforcement. If you are suggesting that the amount

of information one should know upon graduating from school is so finite that

it should be retainable without reinforcement, then you & I have gravely

different expectations from our institutions of higher learning (maybe we

should just leave the word " higher " out, eh?)

 

================

Brian:

In my opinion, there is no need for the exam to be difficult or

exclusionary. Not just anyone can sit for the exam. The person generally

has to graduate from an approved school. That in itself requires much

education and testing. For a school to be approved / acredited also

requires much evaluating, updating, re-evalutating, etc. by third-party

committees. The board exam at the end is just one last test in a long

system of checks and balances along the way. If 30% of the people are

failing this CA exam, there is something seriously wrong with the test. The

is especially the case when people are intentionally studying for the test,

rather than for practice. I do not believe that the fail rate speeks to

something being wrong with the schools.

 

=================

Tim:

I've never taken the CA exam, so I can't speak as to what specifically would

cause one to fail. From heresay I'm sure that arcane questions contribute.

The fact that students have graudated from an " approved school " with its

inherent checks & balances means nothing to me. I've never seen a TCM

school whose academics rivals those of a decent undergraduate program.

Perhaps one exists, I've not seen it. My fiance is in a top 20 graduate

business program, & the expectations of those students make TCM school look

like a road trip to Cancun. My own experiences have been the same, both

during my undergraduate studies, & during my Chinese language studies in the

states & in China. Academically speaking TCM schools just don't compare.

This is nothing new, every well educated student I've talked to has said the

same thing. Many times on this list we've discussed what can be done to

improve the quality of TCM education. The fact is that the barriers to

entry at most, if not all of the schools is just too low to expect true

graduate level work. I may come under fire for that statement, but that's

how I see it.

 

Regarding practitioners passing a cert test without preparation, that is

ludicrous. How many lawyers do you think would pass the bar without review?

Personally speaking, I hold six Microsoft certifications, including the

highest level networking engineer designation in existence. I passed every

exam on the first try, with a score well above average on each. As I review

sample test questions from those exams I often scratch my head & think to

myself - I know I knew that once... The fact is, many of those testing

scenarios are less common in the real world (though they are theoretically

useful). Because of that fact, some of that knowledge is a victim of

attrition. If I faced those scenarios in the real world, I would know where

to look them up since I had studied them previously. I probably wouldn't

pass most of those cert tests without any review, but I can tell you with

confidence that if your corporate email system went down you could do a LOT

worse than to give me a call.

 

 

===============

Brian:

Rigor is not necessary for any subject matter. There are better and worse

ways to teach and better and worse ways to learn. If the subjects are

taught well and the students learn well, rigor never need enter the

equation. I am not saying that CA schools have found this magic balance,

but a call for " rigor " will not solve whatever deficiencies that you

perceive.

 

===============

Tim:

BS!!! This sounds like the same new age cr@p I've heard at school

repeatedly from the poor students (BTW - I'm in no way implying that you

were a poor student). True it is more important to work smart than to work

hard. But I'll take the guy who works smart AND hard every time. Think of

the practitioners you know that have amazed you with their knowledge, the

ones you really look up to. When I studied with Guohui Liu he was often

able to quote directly from the Shang Han Lun & the Nei Jing word for word.

He would also quote from much less known texts, always making a brilliantly

conceived point. His points were always succinct & directly applicable to

what we were studying, & they often came as the result of someone's question

(thus eliminating his ability to just have a few stock phrases memorized).

His ability to do that was born of the fact that he worked his ass off

learning CM (ie rigor). You're in San Diego, ask Huang Tan Tan if he

cruised through school avoiding " rigor " . When I lived in China I was

constantly amazed at how hard working the Chinese students were. I'm

curious if the educators on this list think that rigor is unimportant. I

guarantee you that none of them that study/teach Chinese would say that.

 

=================

Brian:

Furthermore, it is well known that the educationaly CM programs in the pass

were much, much less comprehensive. There are many practitioners from such

programs that passed the cA in the past when the requirements were lower.

Also, there are practitioners who have been grandfathered in. Your call for

" rigor " in todays programs really makes all of those practitioners schooled

in the " olden days " look really deficient.

 

===================

Tim:

Exactly, I agree wholeheartedly, they are. I would say that the ones that

haven't worked hard to stay current, as Bob, Alon, Marnae, & others

have, are without question deficient. Probably the ones exclusively using

acupuncture are less deficient. Clinical experience is a currency akin to

gold, but you've got to have a foundation. The good practitioners filled in

the blanks not met by their education.

 

====================

 

>they have the right to practice it because they jumped through the high

hoops

 

Brian:

The " right " that you mention is a legal right, not necessarily an ethical,

practical, or any other kind of right.

 

======================

Tim:

Hogwash. The right I mention means that by passing the Cert exam they have

demonstrated that they have mastered a core level of medical knowledge.

Schools have a profit motive to graduate students & keep people on track.

Using graduation from a program as the exclusive right of passage is a

conflict of interest. Current practitioners shouldn't have to take the exam

again because they have ALREADY demonstrated that knowledge by passing the

cert test. You don't beat a dead horse.

=======================

 

Brian:

You are making my case for me when you say that the only exam that current

practitioners need to pass takes place in the treatment room. I agree with

you.

=======================

 

Tim:

You are free to infer that, it's clearly not what I wrote or intended.

 

It will be interesting to see if there is dissent to my comments. I we are

taking the lives & wellbeing of our patients into our hands, & as such, no

amount of preparation is too much. If anyone can show me an academic model

without rigor that would outperform a similar yet rigorous model, well...

I'll eat a box of Seirins.

 

-Tim Sharpe

[Guest guest]

Brian,

I completely agree with your assessment of the CA board exam. Many

seasoned chinese practitioners who have been teaching for many years

have not done well on this test because it has little to do with

either consensus curriculum or clinical practice.(unless you consider

all the obscure little details in the the Giovanni Tongue Book

anything but his idiosyncratic musings). Sure Doug,a lot of time,

effort and money is put into making the test. To many people this

seems like a great waste of time, effort and money.

 

Warren

 

 

 

 

 

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...>

wrote:

> , " Tim Sharpe "

> <listserve@d...> wrote:

>

> > certification process. However, I don't agree with your stance

that

> > licensed docs off the street should be able to pass the boards.

If

> > attrition is a natural part of being distanced from a subject,

does

> it not

> > stand to reason that we should set the bar high in the beginning?

> As time

> > passes, practitioners forget the details, but they (hopefully)

don't

> forget

>

> I thought someone might take the suggestion in the manner that you

> did. My point was that if the average practitioner cannot pass the

> test, then the test is bad. If the test were geared towards

standard

> basic CM theory of physiology and pathophysiology, diagnosis,

> treatment principles, etc., then there is no reason the average

> practictioner should not pass the exam without studying.

>

> The exam should test the basic entry level knowledge necessary to

> practice safe and effective CM. It should not test trivia, minutia

of

> detail that can be easily referenced in textbooks, information

> peculiar to one particular author, etc. (I know you agreed on this

point).

>

> In my opinion, there is no need for the exam to be difficult or

> exclusionary. Not just anyone can sit for the exam. The person

> generally has to graduate from an approved school. That in itself

> requires much education and testing. For a school to be approved /

> acredited also requires much evaluating, updating, re-evalutating,

> etc. by third-party committees. The board exam at the end is just

one

> last test in a long system of checks and balances along the way. If

> 30% of the people are failing this CA exam, there is something

> seriously wrong with the test. The is especially the case when

people

> are intentionally studying for the test, rather than for practice.

I

> do not believe that the fail rate speeks to something being wrong

with

> the schools.

>

>

> > the lessons learned from having once mastered the details. We

need high

> > standards in our field, & given the lax academic rigor of nearly

(?)

> every

> > accredited school, I don't mind a tough milestone at the end of

the

> rainbow.

> > Though I freely admit that licensure exams are a crappy measure,

they do

> > measure at least SOME knowledge that has potential. I fully

support

> > reviewing/revising the content of state & national exams, but not

> for one

> > second do I think that the average practitioner should be able to

> pass one

>

> Rigor is not necessary for any subject matter. There are better and

> worse ways to teach and better and worse ways to learn. If the

> subjects are taught well and the students learn well, rigor never

need

> enter the equation. I am not saying that CA schools have found this

> magic balance, but a call for " rigor " will not solve whatever

> deficiencies that you perceive.

>

> Furthermore, it is well known that the educationaly CM programs in

the

> pass were much, much less comprehensive. There are many

practitioners

> from such programs that passed the cA in the past when the

> requirements were lower. Also, there are practitioners who have

been

> grandfathered in. Your call for " rigor " in todays programs really

> makes all of those practitioners schooled in the " olden days " look

> really deficient.

>

>

> > without preparation. The only " exam " they need to be able to pass

> is the

> > one they take every day in their treatment rooms, because that is

> the only

> > exam that reflects TCM as THEY practice it. But they have the

right to

> > practice it because they jumped through the high hoops (giovanni

> prejudiced

> > as they may be).

>

> The " right " that you mention is a legal right, not necessarily an

> ethical, practical, or any other kind of right. In other words, if

I

> can start a safe an effective practice right now without having

taken

> the CA exam, then the only real world difference between me in my

> practice and a student who just passed the exam and his practice

would

> be that his practice is legally sanctioned. The legal issue is a

> reality that we have to deal with, but it holds absolutely no weight

> when it comes to evaluating whether or not someone is a safe and

> effective practitioner.

>

> You are making my case for me when you say that the only exam that

> current practitioners need to pass takes place in the treatment

room.

> I agree with you.

>

> Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

All board exams in California are as hard as possible. It's a historic paranoia

about

being overrun with people from around the world. All other board exams from

architecture to law require 1 to a dozen times to pass. Only in acupuncture do

we

have this thing where the students think that " I got through school with A's and

B's, I

should get a license no problem " . A head of the state board testing division

told me

point blank that the purpose of the exam was to create as much anxiety as

possible

so that only those that who " really want to pass " will and to weed out those who

can't

take the stress of dealing with unfamiliar material (cases).

Harsh? Yes. Fair? Who said life was fair? But that's the political and economic

reality.

And for all the griping about it, it works. I can't think of a single person who

was

qualified who hasn't passed. And of my school mates who are most successful

financially now are those who had to take it 2 or 3 times. They really did have

the

drive. There are alot of well-known teachers and practitioners who had to take

it over

(and over).

I tell my students, the only ones who don't pass the exam are those who got b's

and

c's in school (i.e. struggled with the material) or self-sabatoge themselves

with their

study habits or have some crisis, either from a death in the family or get a

divorce etc

(see #2).

As I keep repeating, if there were well paying Jobs at the end of school, we

would

have higher standards for admission, a much tougher program, C's and F's for a

lot

more students and some people would actually flunk out. The Board would twice as

hard. As it is we are half way between Medicine and the fall-out from 60's

Alternative

culture. I'm more the latter and glad that I have a place to fall into to. I

love it and all

the work including the Board was worth it.

doug

 

 

, " wsheir " <wsheir> wrote:

>

>

> Brian,

> I completely agree with your assessment of the CA board exam. Many

> seasoned chinese practitioners who have been teaching for many years

> have not done well on this test because it has little to do with

> either consensus curriculum or clinical practice.(unless you consider

> all the obscure little details in the the Giovanni Tongue Book

> anything but his idiosyncratic musings). Sure Doug,a lot of time,

> effort and money is put into making the test. To many people this

> seems like a great waste of time, effort and money.

>

> Warren

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " Tim Sharpe "

<listserve@d...> wrote:

 

> BS!!! This sounds like the same new age cr@p I've heard at school

> repeatedly from the poor students (BTW - I'm in no way implying that you

> were a poor student). True it is more important to work smart than

to work

> hard. But I'll take the guy who works smart AND hard every time.

Think of

> the practitioners you know that have amazed you with their

knowledge, the

> ones you really look up to. When I studied with Guohui Liu he was often

> able to quote directly from the Shang Han Lun & the Nei Jing word

for word.

> He would also quote from much less known texts, always making a

brilliantly

> conceived point. His points were always succinct & directly

applicable to

> what we were studying, & they often came as the result of someone's

question

> (thus eliminating his ability to just have a few stock phrases

memorized).

> His ability to do that was born of the fact that he worked his ass off

> learning CM (ie rigor). You're in San Diego, ask Huang Tan Tan if he

> cruised through school avoiding " rigor " . When I lived in China I was

> constantly amazed at how hard working the Chinese students were. I'm

> curious if the educators on this list think that rigor is

unimportant. I

> guarantee you that none of them that study/teach Chinese would say that.

 

Memorization is the lowest form of knowledge / intelligence. I will

never, ever be impressed by memorization because it is something that

any normal person can do. Lot's of memorization equals rigor.

Writing papers for the sake of writing papers is rigor. Once someone

demonstrates that they can write a good paper or 2, why should they

keep writing them over and over if writing papers is not their goal?

 

Also, regarding the Chinese and their schooling / studying, I have

spoke with Chinese teachers at PCOM about their programs. They did

study a lot and much was expected from them. However, I was told that

a 60% was often considered to be an " A " because the tests were

difficult. So, that system does not seem to be working up to the

ideal that hold it to.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

 

bcataiji

Sunday, March 21, 2004 1:36 PM

 

Brian:

 

Memorization is the lowest form of knowledge / intelligence. I will never,

ever be impressed by memorization because it is something that any normal

person can do. Lot's of memorization equals rigor.

============

Tim:

Ok, let's look at those statements. Memorization is the lowest form of

knowledge. I can accept that, but I think it only strenghtens the premise

that rigor is essential. Another way to say " lowest form of knowledge " is

to say " first step " . In Bob Flaws' book " The Secret of Chinese Pulse

Diagnosis " he states that the " secret " is very simple. Memorize every pulse

picture. Know each of them word for word to the extent that you can recite

them. Once you've done this you can merely compare your tactile experience

to the pulse data in your mind. I'm sure you're also familiar with Bob's

" statements of fact " book. His advice is similar here. From personal

experience, when I studied at the Ohio State University's Immersion

Mandarain program we had to memorize a full 2 person dialog every day (5

days/week). We then had to perform the dialog in front of the class,

followed by 4 hours of structured dialog & writing characters from

dictation. The pedagogy of Chinese language learning dictates that students

do better when have an extensive framework of examples from which to draw.

In this instance the framework was a vast collection of " correct " Chinese

phrases (a sort of practical " grammatical analog " to the Statements of

Fact). I think the Pedagological pattern developing is pretty obvious.

Memorization, memorization, memorization.

 

How does one modify a formula without knowing the nature/flavor/actions of

the herbs (requires memorization)

How does one do zang fu differentiation w/o knowing the patterns (requires

memorization)

How does one do tongue/pulse diagnosis (requires memorization)

How does one read Chinese characters (requires memorization)

 

A lapse in any of these areas & clinical efficacy will suffer. You may not

be impressed by memorization, I am appalled in its absence. Now you make a

good point, this is only a first step. Next one has to integrate one's

learning. This is where time & experience factor in, plus reading every

case study you can get your hands on. If you are a serious student then you

may also add the study of medical Chinese (else you'll run out of decent

case studies very quickly). I'm having trouble integrating the rigor free

idea into this scenario.

 

===================

Brian:

Also, regarding the Chinese and their schooling / studying, I have spoke

with Chinese teachers at PCOM about their programs. They did study a lot

and much was expected from them. However, I was told that a 60% was often

considered to be an " A " because the tests were difficult. So, that system

does not seem to be working up to the ideal that hold it to.

 

===================

Tim: The grading scale is a red herring, it's just a scale. If I create a

beauty scale of 1-10, & set the baseline with Angelina Jolie as a 6, then

six is the number to strive for. It doesn't make it any easier to reach

just because there is room above it. This reminds me of the scene in

Spinal Tap where the guitar player's amp goest to 11 so he assumes that it

must be louder than all the other amps. Very funny stuff. The fact that

60% was an A at some school in China provides no meaninful data, though you

did confirm that the program was rigorous. Go back & check out what the

classics say about the " superior physician " . Do you think they were just

blowing smoke?

 

As a final note, the people I've talked with recently who have done very

well on the CA boards (ie better than most of their classmates) also happen

to have approached their studies with significant rigor. Interestingly they

didn't think the questions were too hard, nor were they for the most part

arcane (according to them). As I've said, I've never taken the CA exam, but

this feedback strikes me as interesting. I respect yours & Warren's

opinions about the exam, but I wonder if rigor is the " X " factor there.

 

-Tim Sharpe

[Guest guest]

Doug,

I'm surprised at your defensive response. It seems like you are

saying that the CA exam is like a hazing process and the ends justify

the means. This is the same kind of thinking that excuses all kinds

of injustices (including the U.S'recent incursion into Iraq). No one

was suggesting that the test should not be difficult, only that it

reflect both the education and clinical reality as much as possible.

 

> Harsh? Yes. Fair? Who said life was fair? But that's the political

and economic reality.>

> so that only those that who " really want to pass " will and to weed

out those who can't take the stress of dealing with unfamiliar

material (cases)....<I can't think of a single person who was

qualified who hasn't passed.>

 

Doug, you teach at Emperor's, don't you? 30 Emperor's students sat

for the last exam. Only 13 passed. Are you suggesting that more than

half of the Emperor's students either didn't want to pass or were not

qualified?

 

>I tell my students, the only ones who don't pass the exam are those

who got b's and

> c's in school (i.e. struggled with the material) or self-sabatoge

themselves with their

> study habits or have some crisis, either from a death in the family

or get a divorce etc

 

Must be a lot of crises and divorces...

 

 

Warren

 

 

 

- In , " "

wrote:

> All board exams in California are as hard as possible. It's a

historic paranoia about

> being overrun with people from around the world. All other board

exams from

> architecture to law require 1 to a dozen times to pass. Only in

acupuncture do we

> have this thing where the students think that " I got through school

with A's and B's, I

> should get a license no problem " . A head of the state board testing

division told me

> point blank that the purpose of the exam was to create as much

anxiety as possible

> so that only those that who " really want to pass " will and to weed

out those who can't

> take the stress of dealing with unfamiliar material (cases).

> Harsh? Yes. Fair? Who said life was fair? But that's the political

and economic reality.

> And for all the griping about it, it works. I can't think of a

single person who was

> qualified who hasn't passed. And of my school mates who are most

successful

> financially now are those who had to take it 2 or 3 times. They

really did have the

> drive. There are alot of well-known teachers and practitioners who

had to take it over

> (and over).

> I tell my students, the only ones who don't pass the exam are those

who got b's and

> c's in school (i.e. struggled with the material) or self-sabatoge

themselves with their

> study habits or have some crisis, either from a death in the family

or get a divorce etc

> (see #2).

> As I keep repeating, if there were well paying Jobs at the end of

school, we would

> have higher standards for admission, a much tougher program, C's

and F's for a lot

> more students and some people would actually flunk out. The Board

would twice as

> hard. As it is we are half way between Medicine and the fall-out

from 60's Alternative

> culture. I'm more the latter and glad that I have a place to fall

into to. I love it and all

> the work including the Board was worth it.

> doug

>

>

> , " wsheir " <wsheir>

wrote:

> >

> >

> > Brian,

> > I completely agree with your assessment of the CA board exam.

Many

> > seasoned chinese practitioners who have been teaching for many

years

> > have not done well on this test because it has little to do with

> > either consensus curriculum or clinical practice.(unless you

consider

> > all the obscure little details in the the Giovanni Tongue Book

> > anything but his idiosyncratic musings). Sure Doug,a lot of time,

> > effort and money is put into making the test. To many people this

> > seems like a great waste of time, effort and money.

> >

> > Warren

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure why what I said was defensive and certainly why it has anything to

do

with ends and means or the Iraq war. It's just the way it is. I'm not saying its

the best

way to do things. I can't comment on the people in this latest round who failed

the

exam (I don't keep tabs on who passed or failed) but in the past, after the

practical

part was done any with, there were few surprises as to who passed or failed.

This to

me means the exam is " fair " to some extent. There are few " injustices " . As I

said there

are enough capable and successful practitioners who took it several times. I

will say

that I see more and more students who are taking the exam one or two months

after

graduating. For many people this is not enough time to study.

 

There is this " culture of the state board " and I would only suggest that those

who

have to take it, don't displace your energies into anger at the system.

doug

 

, " wsheir " <wsheir> wrote:

> Doug,

> I'm surprised at your defensive response. It seems like you are

> saying that the CA exam is like a hazing process and the ends justify

> the means. This is the same kind of thinking that excuses all kinds

> of injustices (including the U.S'recent incursion into Iraq). No one

> was suggesting that the test should not be difficult, only that it

> reflect both the education and clinical reality as much as possible.

>

> > Harsh? Yes. Fair? Who said life was fair? But that's the political

> and economic reality.>

> > so that only those that who " really want to pass " will and to weed

> out those who can't take the stress of dealing with unfamiliar

> material (cases)....<I can't think of a single person who was

> qualified who hasn't passed.>

>

> Doug, you teach at Emperor's, don't you? 30 Emperor's students sat

> for the last exam. Only 13 passed. Are you suggesting that more than

> half of the Emperor's students either didn't want to pass or were not

> qualified?

>

> >I tell my students, the only ones who don't pass the exam are those

> who got b's and

> > c's in school (i.e. struggled with the material) or self-sabatoge

> themselves with their

> > study habits or have some crisis, either from a death in the family

> or get a divorce etc

>

> Must be a lot of crises and divorces...

>

>

> Warren

>

>

>

> - In , " "

> wrote:

> > All board exams in California are as hard as possible. It's a

> historic paranoia about

> > being overrun with people from around the world. All other board

> exams from

> > architecture to law require 1 to a dozen times to pass. Only in

> acupuncture do we

> > have this thing where the students think that " I got through school

> with A's and B's, I

> > should get a license no problem " . A head of the state board testing

> division told me

> > point blank that the purpose of the exam was to create as much

> anxiety as possible

> > so that only those that who " really want to pass " will and to weed

> out those who can't

> > take the stress of dealing with unfamiliar material (cases).

> > Harsh? Yes. Fair? Who said life was fair? But that's the political

> and economic reality.

> > And for all the griping about it, it works. I can't think of a

> single person who was

> > qualified who hasn't passed. And of my school mates who are most

> successful

> > financially now are those who had to take it 2 or 3 times. They

> really did have the

> > drive. There are alot of well-known teachers and practitioners who

> had to take it over

> > (and over).

> > I tell my students, the only ones who don't pass the exam are those

> who got b's and

> > c's in school (i.e. struggled with the material) or self-sabatoge

> themselves with their

> > study habits or have some crisis, either from a death in the family

> or get a divorce etc

> > (see #2).

> > As I keep repeating, if there were well paying Jobs at the end of

> school, we would

> > have higher standards for admission, a much tougher program, C's

> and F's for a lot

> > more students and some people would actually flunk out. The Board

> would twice as

> > hard. As it is we are half way between Medicine and the fall-out

> from 60's Alternative

> > culture. I'm more the latter and glad that I have a place to fall

> into to. I love it and all

> > the work including the Board was worth it.

> > doug

> >

> >

> > , " wsheir " <wsheir>

> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > Brian,

> > > I completely agree with your assessment of the CA board exam.

> Many

> > > seasoned chinese practitioners who have been teaching for many

> years

> > > have not done well on this test because it has little to do with

> > > either consensus curriculum or clinical practice.(unless you

> consider

> > > all the obscure little details in the the Giovanni Tongue Book

> > > anything but his idiosyncratic musings). Sure Doug,a lot of time,

> > > effort and money is put into making the test. To many people this

> > > seems like a great waste of time, effort and money.

> > >

> > > Warren

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Doug,

You are right. Apologist is a better word. A couple of points : If as

you say you " don't keep tabs on who passed or failed " how could you

possibly know if the exam is fair and that there are " few surprises

as to who passed or failed? "

But more importantly, to a great extent the test dictates curriculum

to the schools through their book list, and as Brian aptly pointed

out, the silly nature of many of the questions on the test. What you

call the " culture of the state board " permeates the educational

environment from the moment students enter schools in CA, and in my

opinion, not in a positive way.

 

Warren

 

 

> > Harsh? Yes. Fair? Who said life was fair? But that's the political

> and economic reality.>

> > so that only those that who " really want to pass " will and to weed

> out those who can't take the stress of dealing with unfamiliar

> material (cases)....<I can't think of a single person who was

> qualified who hasn't passed.>

 

> I'm not sure why what I said was defensive and certainly why it has

anything to do

> with ends and means or the Iraq war. It's just the way it is. I'm

not saying its the best

> way to do things. I can't comment on the people in this latest

round who failed the

> exam (I don't keep tabs on who passed or failed) but in the past,

after the practical

> part was done any with, there were few surprises as to who passed

or failed. This to

> me means the exam is " fair " to some extent. There are

few " injustices " . As I said there

> are enough capable and successful practitioners who took it several

times. I will say

> that I see more and more students who are taking the exam one or

two months after

> graduating. For many people this is not enough time to study.

>

> There is this " culture of the state board " and I would only suggest

that those who

> have to take it, don't displace your energies into anger at the

system.

> doug

>

> , " wsheir " <wsheir>

wrote:

> > Doug,

> > I'm surprised at your defensive response. It seems like you are

> > saying that the CA exam is like a hazing process and the ends

justify

> > the means. This is the same kind of thinking that excuses all

kinds

> > of injustices (including the U.S'recent incursion into Iraq). No

one

> > was suggesting that the test should not be difficult, only that

it

> > reflect both the education and clinical reality as much as

possible.

> >

> > > Harsh? Yes. Fair? Who said life was fair? But that's the

political

> > and economic reality.>

> > > so that only those that who " really want to pass " will and to

weed

> > out those who can't take the stress of dealing with unfamiliar

> > material (cases)....<I can't think of a single person who was

> > qualified who hasn't passed.>

> >

> > Doug, you teach at Emperor's, don't you? 30 Emperor's students

sat

> > for the last exam. Only 13 passed. Are you suggesting that more

than

> > half of the Emperor's students either didn't want to pass or were

not

> > qualified?

> >

> > >I tell my students, the only ones who don't pass the exam are

those

> > who got b's and

> > > c's in school (i.e. struggled with the material) or self-

sabatoge

> > themselves with their

> > > study habits or have some crisis, either from a death in the

family

> > or get a divorce etc

> >

> > Must be a lot of crises and divorces...

> >

> >

> > Warren

> >

> >

> >

> > - In , " "

 

> > wrote:

> > > All board exams in California are as hard as possible. It's a

> > historic paranoia about

> > > being overrun with people from around the world. All other

board

> > exams from

> > > architecture to law require 1 to a dozen times to pass. Only in

> > acupuncture do we

> > > have this thing where the students think that " I got through

school

> > with A's and B's, I

> > > should get a license no problem " . A head of the state board

testing

> > division told me

> > > point blank that the purpose of the exam was to create as much

> > anxiety as possible

> > > so that only those that who " really want to pass " will and to

weed

> > out those who can't

> > > take the stress of dealing with unfamiliar material (cases).

> > > Harsh? Yes. Fair? Who said life was fair? But that's the

political

> > and economic reality.

> > > And for all the griping about it, it works. I can't think of a

> > single person who was

> > > qualified who hasn't passed. And of my school mates who are

most

> > successful

> > > financially now are those who had to take it 2 or 3 times. They

> > really did have the

> > > drive. There are alot of well-known teachers and practitioners

who

> > had to take it over

> > > (and over).

> > > I tell my students, the only ones who don't pass the exam are

those

> > who got b's and

> > > c's in school (i.e. struggled with the material) or self-

sabatoge

> > themselves with their

> > > study habits or have some crisis, either from a death in the

family

> > or get a divorce etc

> > > (see #2).

> > > As I keep repeating, if there were well paying Jobs at the end

of

> > school, we would

> > > have higher standards for admission, a much tougher program,

C's

> > and F's for a lot

> > > more students and some people would actually flunk out. The

Board

> > would twice as

> > > hard. As it is we are half way between Medicine and the fall-

out

> > from 60's Alternative

> > > culture. I'm more the latter and glad that I have a place to

fall

> > into to. I love it and all

> > > the work including the Board was worth it.

> > > doug

> > >

> > >

> > > , " wsheir "

<wsheir>

> > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Brian,

> > > > I completely agree with your assessment of the CA board exam.

> > Many

> > > > seasoned chinese practitioners who have been teaching for

many

> > years

> > > > have not done well on this test because it has little to do

with

> > > > either consensus curriculum or clinical practice.(unless you

> > consider

> > > > all the obscure little details in the the Giovanni Tongue

Book

> > > > anything but his idiosyncratic musings). Sure Doug,a lot of

time,

> > > > effort and money is put into making the test. To many people

this

> > > > seems like a great waste of time, effort and money.

> > > >

> > > > Warren

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Whatever. Sure, I would like to see more books on the test, we're ready for the

Mitchell Shan Hun, one of the Wen Bing books, Phlegm Pathology etc... But

getting

upset about the Caifornia State Board is like moving to Minnesota and

complaining

about the snow. If it's part hazing then perhaps that's true. As you know,

nothing can

compare you for seeing patients. You're no longer taken through the process with

the

answer somewhere on the page. What I've had to do with patients this week makes

me think that the test should be twice as hard. Not becaue my knowledge was

tested

but my willingness to deal with difficult situations.

doug

 

 

, " wsheir " <wsheir> wrote:

> Doug,

> You are right. Apologist is a better word. A couple of points : If as

> you say you " don't keep tabs on who passed or failed " how could you

> possibly know if the exam is fair and that there are " few surprises

> as to who passed or failed? "

> But more importantly, to a great extent the test dictates curriculum

> to the schools through their book list, and as Brian aptly pointed

> out, the silly nature of many of the questions on the test. What you

> call the " culture of the state board " permeates the educational

> environment from the moment students enter schools in CA, and in my

> opinion, not in a positive way.

>

> Warren

>

[Guest guest]

I do believe that the text books for the state board are in the process of

being updated. It is a huge process, not a simple one. I also believe,

based on the types of cases I have received that there was allot of stuff

not covered in school. I see ALLOT of nerve related syndromes... like RSD.

People who have had numerous surgeries and have residual nerve pain. More

information on electrical medicine would have been helpful. Then again, I

guess thats why there are CEU's so that we can get versed in that which was

not covered in school!

 

To top it off, most of my difficult cases are literally taking a shoe box

of different western meds. I generally do not even begin to do herbs with

these type of patients.. the only formulas I do with them, are Kampo

Granules that have been standardized and generally its Ban Xie Xia Xin Tang

for the epigastrium, because they all have acid reflux , due to all the Meds

they are on.

 

 

Teresa Hall, L.Ac, M.S, Q.M.E.

619-517-1188

-

" "

Monday, March 22, 2004 7:35 PM

Re: fundamental flaw of CA exam

 

 

> Whatever. Sure, I would like to see more books on the test, we're ready

for the

> Mitchell Shan Hun, one of the Wen Bing books, Phlegm Pathology etc...

But getting

> upset about the Caifornia State Board is like moving to Minnesota and

complaining

> about the snow. If it's part hazing then perhaps that's true. As you

know, nothing can

> compare you for seeing patients. You're no longer taken through the

process with the

> answer somewhere on the page. What I've had to do with patients this

week makes

> me think that the test should be twice as hard. Not becaue my knowledge

was tested

> but my willingness to deal with difficult situations.

> doug

>

>

> , " wsheir " <wsheir> wrote:

> > Doug,

> > You are right. Apologist is a better word. A couple of points : If as

> > you say you " don't keep tabs on who passed or failed " how could you

> > possibly know if the exam is fair and that there are " few surprises

> > as to who passed or failed? "

> > But more importantly, to a great extent the test dictates curriculum

> > to the schools through their book list, and as Brian aptly pointed

> > out, the silly nature of many of the questions on the test. What you

> > call the " culture of the state board " permeates the educational

> > environment from the moment students enter schools in CA, and in my

> > opinion, not in a positive way.

> >

> > Warren

> >

>

>

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free

discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

I can't comment on the people in this latest round who failed the

> exam (I don't keep tabs on who passed or failed) but in the past, after the

practical

> part was done any with, there were few surprises as to who passed or

failed.

 

So its no surprise to you that only 43% of Emperor's grads passed the CA

boards? Is this part of Emperor's marketing plan? This data is posted on the

board website and includes retakes. My alma mater, OCOM, had a 0% pass rate,

BTW (but only one student took the exam). My employer, PCOM-SD had a 79%

pass rate with about the same number of students taking the exam as

Emperors. So if the exam is not unfair. What gives? Does emperor's not teach

to the test as much as PCOM? Or are our students that much superior? Doug

seems to be suggesting that all the responsibility lies with the students in

this matter. The test is fair and the education is fine. I find it hard to

believe that emperor's students are half as smart as PCOM. I think its more

likely that the test is unfair and the more effort made to gear education to

taking the test, the better people do. This is really sad because most of the

board exam texts are pretty lame. PCOM has students take a yearend exam

every year that is very much like the board exam. Does emperor's do this?

 

[Guest guest]

Well, being employed at Emperors, among others, I'll try to be diplomatic and

try not

to upset anybody. Obviously folks at ECTOM aren't happy about the test results.

I'm

not sure that PCOM is twice as smart as ECTOM or that we teach that much

differently, in fact, it's probably pretty much the same program. I have a

feeling it's

that after years of good results on the state board results, ECTOM got too lax

on who

they let through the final graduating exam. This test is geared also to the

state board.

I imagine that too many people weren't ready for the state board and it showed.

The

trouble with teaching to the Exam is that the test itself keeps changing its

format. It's

all full circle, if a school gears a program too rigorously and students are

lost or at

least upset all the time and the administration deals with that too much. Make

it less

rigorous and ... well... they get smacked up against the State Board, at least

in

California. Teach to only the State Board then you have to anticipate what the

format

might be 4 years from the first class. Teachers get supervised and teach from

materials they are less comfortable with. Their own teaching styles and the

" transmission " suffer. From the schools I've seen, the balance is that the

school

makes its own standards and then has the student rise to the graduating exam and

then the state board. It's not a great system but probably the best that can be

done.

doug

 

 

, " " wrote:

> , " " wrote:

> I can't comment on the people in this latest round who failed the

> > exam (I don't keep tabs on who passed or failed) but in the past, after the

> practical

> > part was done any with, there were few surprises as to who passed or

> failed.

>

> So its no surprise to you that only 43% of Emperor's grads passed the CA

> boards? Is this part of Emperor's marketing plan? This data is posted on the

> board website and includes retakes. My alma mater, OCOM, had a 0% pass rate,

> BTW (but only one student took the exam). My employer, PCOM-SD had a 79%

> pass rate with about the same number of students taking the exam as

> Emperors. So if the exam is not unfair. What gives? Does emperor's not

teach

> to the test as much as PCOM? Or are our students that much superior? Doug

> seems to be suggesting that all the responsibility lies with the students in

> this matter. The test is fair and the education is fine. I find it hard to

> believe that emperor's students are half as smart as PCOM. I think its more

> likely that the test is unfair and the more effort made to gear education to

> taking the test, the better people do. This is really sad because most of the

> board exam texts are pretty lame. PCOM has students take a yearend exam

> every year that is very much like the board exam. Does emperor's do this?

>

 

[Guest guest]

On Mar 23, 2004, at 11:59 AM, wrote:

 

> PCOM has students take a yearend exam

> every year that is very much like the board exam. Does emperor's do

> this?

 

We used to have yearly exams. It went away for most of my education,

not sure if they're doing that again. One thing that I know we have is

the pre-clinical exam which is a comprehensive exam that serves as a

gate between being an observer in the clinic and being an intern.

 

Then, in the fourth or final year, there is a comprehensive exam. It is

this exam that best mimics the state board and it is this exam's

passing or failing that is the best indicator of who will pass or fail

the state board.

 

Looking at the grades, lifestyles, and other criteria of those who

failed this recent state board, it appears that the best predictor of

who will pass is that comprehensive exam. Those who failed this last

state board also failed the comprehensive exam.

 

--

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

-Adlai Stevenson

[Guest guest]

 

 

> Ken <bendat

> March 23, 2004 8:59:53 AM PST

>

> Re: fundamental flaw of CA exam

>

> I took, and passed, the California exam in December of 1986. Seems

> their was a big scandal, the details of which I

> don't recall and didn't pay complete attention to, where a lot of

> Korean exam-takers were using information they

> paid for to pass the exams. As a partial result of this, the fees for

> maintaining the exam were increased so that we had

> to pay every year the $3-400, rather than every other year. I had

> moved to Oregon, so after a period of being unwilling

> to pay the fees, the state said, basically - cough up the $2000+ or

> lose your inactive status completely. At that point,

> I didn't think I'd want to be back in California anyway. Guess if I

> did again, I'd have to go through the whole thing again -

> plus schooling.

>

>

> Ken Bendat

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

They eventually passed or they wouldn't have had the chance to sit for the

state.

doug

 

> Looking at the grades, lifestyles, and other criteria of those who

> failed this recent state board, it appears that the best predictor of

> who will pass is that comprehensive exam. Those who failed this last

> state board also failed the comprehensive exam.

>

> --

>

> Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

> -Adlai Stevenson

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

I find myself certainly a party to this discussion, as I will, G-d

willing, be taking the July test, and needed to pass a comprehensive

graduation test (200 questions in 3 hours)as a prerequisite . BTW, my

school, DRU, had a 78% passing rate for the Jan. state board, (and 100%

in the English division of our school). I think that we all need to

realize and accept that as has been mentioned ad nauseum, the state board

is an Oriental medicine comprehensive trivia exam, and (S)he who

properly prepares succeeds. Just like for SAT's, MCAT's and LSAT's,

there are review courses. So why the sour grapes...prepare and deal with

it! Such is the reality of our goal oriented society: not proficiency,

but acquisition of needed information and achievement. Is the goal to

produce better physicians? One would be a naive fool to answer in the

affirmative, but by the same token, the information we need to know is

important, and if it included a required apprenticeship, an oral exam

and interview, and a practical exam (as used to be the case), it would

certainly raise the bar. In the meantime, after July I look forward to

REALLY start learning how to think outside the box.

 

Sincerely,

 

Yehuda

 

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:59:32 -0000 " " < writes:

> , " "

> wrote:

> I can't comment on the people in this latest round who failed the

> > exam (I don't keep tabs on who passed or failed) but in the past,

> after the

> practical

> > part was done any with, there were few surprises as to who passed

> or

> failed.

>

> So its no surprise to you that only 43% of Emperor's grads passed

> the CA

> boards? Is this part of Emperor's marketing plan? This data is

> posted on the

> board website and includes retakes. My alma mater, OCOM, had a 0%

> pass rate,

> BTW (but only one student took the exam). My employer, PCOM-SD had

> a 79%

> pass rate with about the same number of students taking the exam as

> Emperors. So if the exam is not unfair. What gives? Does

> emperor's not teach

> to the test as much as PCOM? Or are our students that much

> superior? Doug

> seems to be suggesting that all the responsibility lies with the

> students in

> this matter. The test is fair and the education is fine. I find it

> hard to

> believe that emperor's students are half as smart as PCOM. I think

> its more

> likely that the test is unfair and the more effort made to gear

> education to

> taking the test, the better people do. This is really sad because

> most of the

> board exam texts are pretty lame. PCOM has students take a yearend

> exam

> every year that is very much like the board exam. Does emperor's do

> this?

>

 

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

> including board approved continuing education classes, an annual

> conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>