Cheaters Caught on Florida Boards according to the minutes, what's your opinion?



http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Mqa/optometry/op_minutes.html

September 21, 2005 – Draft
Begins on page 5

Cheaters Caught on Florida Boards according to the minutes, what's your opinion?



http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Mqa/optometry/op_minutes.html

September 21, 2005 – Draft
Begins on page 5


I can't believe it! What's going to happen to these students?

oh my gosh! this is disgraceful :thumbdown i can't believe it! and these people call themselves professionals!

I can't believe it! What's going to happen to these students?

Blacklisted!

I can't believe it! What's going to happen to these students?

These aren't students, like sombody above said they are professionals!

These aren't students, like sombody above said they are professionals!

Well now I'm pissed! All this time I thought studying was the answer. :mad:

Somebody please explain....what did they do?

Thanks!

For those who can't open Adobe Reader / cut to page 5



DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH MEDICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE FLORIDA BOARD OF OPTOMETRY September 21, 2005 Minutes General Business Meeting Ft. Lauderdale, Florida CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Easton, O.D., at 9:00 a.m.
------ cut ----------------

She stated that she has been involved with the state board examination since 1990 and has long suspected a problem with the clinical and written portion of the examination. Ms. Carnes, made herself available to the board to answer any questions they may have. She informed the board that the examiners came forward on the date of the examination stating that they felt that irregularities appeared to be occuring. She advised the board that should the particular questions be thrown out, it could impact the overall examination for each of these candidates. Mr. Baker advised the board that the candidates knew the outcome of their examinations. Mr. John Griffin, Esquire, representing Joni L. Gantt, O.D. noted that his client had received notification stating that she was eligible for licensure. Ms. Carnes provided a brief description of the examination process. Dr. McClane requested direction. Mr. Baker informed the board that the decision before the board was to grant licensure to these candidates or to deny their applications for licensure. Ms. Carnes was questioned as to the precedence set by the Department. Ms. Gustafson addressed the board stating that if the board feels that cheating occurred on the examination, the applications should be denied. She provided the board with a brief scenario of what could occur during a hearing process. It was noted that during the administration of the July 2005 Optometry Clinical Examination, several examiners noticed that candidates were giving very rote answers to the visual field questions asked during the examination. The examiners noticed that, not only did the answers given by some candidates seem rehearsed, but the answers also sometimes corresponded to another visual field exhibit in rotation at the examination, but not given to that particular candidate. In addition, while conducting the post-examination consultant review, it was discovered that some of the scan sheets reviewed contained answers for a visual field exhibit other than the one shown to the candidates for whom the scan sheets were reviewed. The Psychometrician conducted an analysis of all of the visual field exhibits shown and the corresponding answers given by candidates. During this analysis, more candidates were found to have answers that corresponded to visual fields other than the ones they were shown and Examination Irregularity Forms were generated. After a review of all of the materials that were provided and questions were posed and answered, the board addressed each applicant. Nathan J. Bonilla-Warford, O.D., was present, sworn and represented be Michael Gennett, Esquire. Mr. Gennett informed the board that Dr. Bonilla flatly denied any cheating on this examination, he does not live in this state nor does he know any of the other applicants. He urged the board to treat this matter very seriously.
5


Dr. Bonilla informed the board that he passed all parts of the examination and was eligible for licensure. Dr. Pierie requested that the letter Dr. Bonilla received be passed around for the board’s review. Dr. Easton informed the board and audience that the letter in question regarding eligibility for licensure was generated by the Testing Services Unit and not the board staff. Discussion ensued regarding the process involved in the actual testing process. Dr. Sterling provided a brief explanation of the examination process utilizing the questions and appropriate responses using the confidential information provided to the board members. She stated that Dr. Bonilla was in the first testing group and based upon that fact the Department may not be able to defend its position with this particular candidate. Dr. Easton and Ms. Gustafson reiterated that the decision before the board is whether dishonesty and/or collusion occurred, not whether points will be taken away from the examination. Dr. McClane stated that a burden of proof must be established and he and the board wanted to be fair to each candidate and determine whether or not collusion had occurred. He noted that the burden of proof lies with the Board and Department and he stated that he needed to hear from each candidate prior to making a decision. Dr. Walker questioned Ms. Carnes about her ability to determine how the potential for cheating occurred. Discussion ensued. Dr. Sterling informed the board and audience that in the future, all visual fields, which are the subject of these allegations, will be changed around for each session. She informed the board that in order to minimize any occurrence of cheating on the visual fields section of the clinical examination, a larger pool of visual fields items is being created. She noted that the goal is to increase the items bank to at least five times its current size to allow for much less exposure to any given visual fields item. Jane Bucci, O.D., was neither present nor represented by counsel. Joni L. Gantt, O.D., was present, sworn and was represented by John Griffin, Esquire. Mr. Griffin stated that he shared the same concerns as Mr. Gennett. He passed out a packet of information for the board members to review. He stated that he would like the information passed out to be considered confidential information and to be placed in the Shred-it bin at the conclusion of the meeting. The board reviewed the documentation. Mr. Griffin informed the board that Dr. Gantt had an outstanding academic career and is currently licensed in other states and clearly had no motive to receive a passing grade on a test
6


by collusion or cheating. He stated that she would tell you she received no assistance from any other candidates nor did she pass along information to others. He stated that he and his client received no information relative to this serious accusation. He suggested that the burden will eventually shift to the board and then the board must show a specific intent to defraud the board in order to obtain a license. Mr. Baker informed the board that the Board staff provided the candidates with all of the information counsel allowed them to disseminate. Dr. Gantt informed the board that she was recently licensed in Alabama. Dr. Gantt provided the board with a brief description of what occurred during the portion of the examination in question. Amanda L. Hill, O.D., was present, sworn and was accompanied by Dr. Erin Broome as her character witness. Dr. Broome addressed the board. She stated that she was present to speak on behalf of Dr. Hills’ character. She noted that Dr. Hill possessed above average diagnosis skills and patient care and quality. She stated that Dr. Hill is a very dedicated involved professional. Dr. Hill addressed the board. She reiterated that she did not associate with any of the others involved with this allegation. She provided a copy of her scores for the board’s review. She noted that there was one other candidate that was involved in this matter that was in her graduating class, but he was tested at the same time and there would not have been an opportunity to communicate any test answers. David L. Hunt, O.D., was present, sworn but not represented by counsel. Dr. Hunt addressed the board. He noted that he was extremely unhappy with the method in which this entire matter was handled. He stated that his first incorrect answer led him to answer the two following questions incorrectly. He stated that he only knew one of the candidates and that he did not exchange any information with any one. He stated that the first words out of his mouth were considered the answer to the questions and that his visual fields were placed in the opposite positions. Wanda Sangiovanni, O.D., was present, sworn but not represented by counsel. Dr. Sangiovanni addressed the board stating that she has been practicing in Puerto Rico for five years and stated that she did not know anyone else taking the examination. Dr. Sangiovanni provided a brief description of the test questions regarding visual fields. Dr. McClane moved to approve Nathan James Bonilla-Warford, Joni Lynn Gantt, Jane Bucci, David Lee Hunt, and Amanda Leigh Hill based upon the lack of substantial evidence and individual misconduct. The motion was seconded, and carried 7/0. Examination Committee: Ms. Jennifer Hamilton, Testing Services Manager, and Marsh Carnes, Psychometrician, provided the following examination statistical report. Ms. Carnes was available to answer any questions regarding the proposed changes to the visual field changes.
7


----- cut due to length ----

Well now I'm pissed! All this time I thought studying was the answer. :mad:

Are any of you people actually reading the minutes attached?

I read through them, and it turned out that the board found no real basis for the accusation, and as such granted each of them licensure. Someone involved in the administration of the exam claimed that she had been raising an issue with some of these questions since 1990.

I will say however that after reading them a couple of times, I can't quite figure out what it is they are alleged to have done??

Are any of you people actually reading the minutes attached?

I read through them, and it turned out that the board found no real basis for the accusation, and as such granted each of them licensure. Someone involved in the administration of the exam claimed that she had been raising an issue with some of these questions since 1990.

I will say however that after reading them a couple of times, I can't quite figure out what it is they are alleged to have done??

Wondering the exact same thing you are...
I thought maybe I missed something :confused:

Are any of you people actually reading the minutes attached?

I read through them, and it turned out that the board found no real basis for the accusation, and as such granted each of them licensure. Someone involved in the administration of the exam claimed that she had been raising an issue with some of these questions since 1990.

I will say however that after reading them a couple of times, I can't quite figure out what it is they are alleged to have done??

How many times does the word "CHEATING" have to come up for the accusations to be obvious? The Psychometric evaluation indicated cheating. Threats of lawyers are the reasons Florida boards apparently backed out from taking away their licensure.

If your argument is accurate then all the people since 1990 that didn't pass the Florida boards have reason to complain.

How many times does the word "CHEATING" have to come up for the accusations to be obvious?

They didn't cheat. They were not punished for "cheating", in fact were not punished. You are getting a very small portion of what seemed to be a long meeting. I am surprised this was in the public record.

And I have to agree with this:

I will say however that after reading them a couple of times, I can't quite figure out what it is they are alleged to have done??

I am surprised this was in the public record.



In public record because Florida boards thought it should be public records nontheless.

In public record because Florida boards thought it should be public records nontheless.

I understand this. I am, however, surprised.

Note to self: forget florida apply to montana, I have never heard a bad story from montana. :idea:

This is all still under evaluation.... but, there WERE students who gave the absolute WRONG answers to the visual field they were shown (but, they were the CORRECT answers to the field shown on Saturday morning). Which, from an examiners point of view looks verrrrry fishy. But, I could see how it could happen innocently.. there were only three fields.

But, yes.. all board minutes are public record. (including criminal records which are discussed in some board review dates)

ooo they're doing a breakdown of pass/fail by school. I was the only one from UHCO to take it : 100% :D

This is all still under evaluation.... but, there WERE students who gave the absolute WRONG answers to the visual field they were shown (but, they were the CORRECT answers to the field shown on Saturday morning). Which, from an examiners point of view looks verrrrry fishy.

Thank god I am not a moron and actually LOOKED at the visual field.

But, yes.. all board minutes are public record. (including criminal records which are discussed in some board review dates)As someone who has also taken the boards in Florida (and passed without being accused of cheating) I can tell you that information about the exam was passed out weeks before. As I elluded to in a post to CPW, there was a list created by people who had taken the test before with all of the differential diagnoses that have shown up in the past. This list was given to the residents at Bascom Palmer when I was there by one of the residents who graduated from NOVA. That was in 1997. Was this cheating? I don't know. I do know that I had to study all of the diseases on that list to make sure I knew them for the test. Several of them showed up on the exam that year. I would not be surprised if people talk from year to year and those students knew several of the possible visual fields that may show up. They probably studied them all and when they misread the field, answered the rest of the questions based on what they had studied. The important point here is that they were not found guilty of cheating. In my opinion they were guilty of misreading the visual field and basing the rest of their answers on what they had memorized.

Side note, in California when I took the written driver's license exam there were only 5 different tests. All my friends had a copy of each of them and that is what we used to study. I was able to answer the questions before I had finished reading them. Was that cheating? I still had to study the anwsers. All it did was focus that studying.

If some test takers had an advantage over other test takers because they were able to "focus" and narrow it down to a few possible questions that is an unfair advantage.

Imagine yourself in this scenario:
1. $2000 in fees
2. $500 airplane because you are from out of town
3. $300 on a hotel because you are from out of town.
4. $200 on food expenses because you are from out of town.
You fail after studying ALL the material because you don't have a buddy to narrow down the answers. You have to face your friends, family, turn down the job offer you had in Florida, because you didn't have a buddy.

THIS IS NOT ONLY CHEATING ITS CRIMINAL!!

And at the end of the day did the best doctor get picked or the sneakiest doctor get picked. Which one would you like to have in case of an ocular emergency???

And at the end of the day did the best doctor get picked or the sneakiest doctor get picked. Which one would you like to have in case of an ocular emergency???

The doctor with a license :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
(it's a joke, people!)

The doctor with a license :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Here is a fine example of an individual with a serious lack of ethics!

As someone who has also taken the boards in Florida (and passed without being accused of cheating) I can tell you that information about the exam was passed out weeks before. As I elluded to in a post to CPW, there was a list created by people who had taken the test before with all of the differential diagnoses that have shown up in the past. This list was given to the residents at Bascom Palmer when I was there by one of the residents who graduated from NOVA. That was in 1997. Was this cheating? I don't know. I do know that I had to study all of the diseases on that list to make sure I knew them for the test. Several of them showed up on the exam that year. I would not be surprised if people talk from year to year and those students knew several of the possible visual fields that may show up. They probably studied them all and when they misread the field, answered the rest of the questions based on what they had studied. The important point here is that they were not found guilty of cheating. In my opinion they were guilty of misreading the visual field and basing the rest of their answers on what they had memorized.

Side note, in California when I took the written driver's license exam there were only 5 different tests. All my friends had a copy of each of them and that is what we used to study. I was able to answer the questions before I had finished reading them. Was that cheating? I still had to study the anwsers. All it did was focus that studying.

the Florida board gives out a differential diagnosis list in their application packet...

If some test takers had an advantage over other test takers because they were able to "focus" and narrow it down to a few possible questions that is an unfair advantage.

Imagine yourself in this scenario:
1. $2000 in fees
2. $500 airplane because you are from out of town
3. $300 on a hotel because you are from out of town.
4. $200 on food expenses because you are from out of town.
You fail after studying ALL the material because you don't have a buddy to narrow down the answers. You have to face your friends, family, turn down the job offer you had in Florida, because you didn't have a buddy.

THIS IS NOT ONLY CHEATING ITS CRIMINAL!!

And at the end of the day did the best doctor get picked or the sneakiest doctor get picked. Which one would you like to have in case of an ocular emergency???

I do not have a Florida license, nor have I ever taken the Florida examination.

I do not see what all the fuss is about however.

5 out of the 6 doctors allegedly involved in this presented themselves to the board and testified. The board found no evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, one of the boards own members questioned the ability of the psychometrician in regard to this matter per the minutes themselves.

And then the board voted 7-0 to grant licensure to each candidate. Not a single dissent.

The fact that a list of past test topics has been circulated by people who have taken the exam in the past is to me, a non issue. If I take an exam and come out and say "They asked me about central serous retinopathy" does not give any future candidate any advantage because there is no guarantee that they will ask about central serous retinopathy in the future.

Its no small secret in optometry school, medical school, and dental schools that many instructors recycle old exam questions frequently, and if you can obtain old tests, you are pretty much set. In fact, while a few instructors do not make their old tests available, many instructors in fact DO. Is this cheating? I think you would have a hard time saying it is.

I think this whole Florida situation is much ado about nothing.

Well I think Montana is real nice. None of that loud partying found in South Beach. :p

the Florida board gives out a differential diagnosis list in their application packet...That must be relatively new. In 1997, the only list that circulated was from the memory of previous test takers. I think it's a good idea that the state now does it.

I do not have a Florida license, nor have I ever taken the Florida examination.

I do not see what all the fuss is about however.

5 out of the 6 doctors allegedly involved in this presented themselves to the board and testified. The board found no evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, one of the boards own members questioned the ability of the psychometrician in regard to this matter per the minutes themselves.

And then the board voted 7-0 to grant licensure to each candidate. Not a single dissent.

The fact that a list of past test topics has been circulated by people who have taken the exam in the past is to me, a non issue. If I take an exam and come out and say "They asked me about central serous retinopathy" does not give any future candidate any advantage because there is no guarantee that they will ask about central serous retinopathy in the future.

Its no small secret in optometry school, medical school, and dental schools that many instructors recycle old exam questions frequently, and if you can obtain old tests, you are pretty much set. In fact, while a few instructors do not make their old tests available, many instructors in fact DO. Is this cheating? I think you would have a hard time saying it is.

I think this whole Florida situation is much ado about nothing.I agree completely Ken.

If some test takers had an advantage over other test takers because they were able to "focus" and narrow it down to a few possible questions that is an unfair advantage.

Imagine yourself in this scenario:
1. $2000 in fees
2. $500 airplane because you are from out of town
3. $300 on a hotel because you are from out of town.
4. $200 on food expenses because you are from out of town.
You fail after studying ALL the material because you don't have a buddy to narrow down the answers. You have to face your friends, family, turn down the job offer you had in Florida, because you didn't have a buddy.

THIS IS NOT ONLY CHEATING ITS CRIMINAL!!

And at the end of the day did the best doctor get picked or the sneakiest doctor get picked. Which one would you like to have in case of an ocular emergency???As you can see from CPW's post, Florida already helps narrow down the answers. Is that cheating? Is that criminal?

At the end of the day, the doctor that learned the information got picked. These doctors still had the learn the information. They still had to understand the visual fields. I would not have the same opinion if it was shown that these doctors took a cheat sheet with them. I would bet that no one would turn down this type of help before an exam.

As you can see from CPW's post, Florida already helps narrow down the answers. Is that cheating? Is that criminal?

At the end of the day, the doctor that learned the information got picked. These doctors still had the learn the information. They still had to understand the visual fields. I would not have the same opinion if it was shown that these doctors took a cheat sheet with them. I would bet that no one would turn down this type of help before an exam.

I second that

I am one of the ODs that was accused in this case. Let me tell you the facts from my point of view:

I graduated ICO 2004 and finished my Pediatric residency at ICO in June of this year. I am originally from Florida and have always wanted to return. I have never been accused of cheating on anything, ever in my entire life, and did not enjoy the experience.

After paying the $2000 registration, I payed and additional $500 to take the "Florida Boards Review" at NOVA. This is legal and sanctioned. It is taught by NOVA faculty members at NOVA. Even the Florida Optometric Association was present during the review. The review did cover visual fields, but it was basic stuff. They did not say "expect these fields." Furthermore, I neither sought nor received further information about the exam.

After taking the exam, I receive a letter stating that I had passed all part and I was eligible to practice in Florida. I then receive a separate letter from the Board, stating that at the next Board meeting "my application was up for consideration" and I was "welcome to attend." At no point did this letter accuse me of cheating, nor did it require my presence to explain my interpretation of the facts. At this point was not too worried. After all, I had already passed the test.

After 2 days and a dozen phone calls, I am informed that I am being accused of cheating on the visual portion of the test. (I freely admit that I missed the field. I knew I missed they minute I took it. I was nervous and the "the first words out of your mouth after seeing this field is your answer and you cannot change it" tripped me up. It happens.)

I hire a lawyer ($4,200) and fly down to the Board meeting. After reviewing the facts:

* None of the 6 accused know each or had ever interacted, except for two NOVA students who sat during the exam at the exact same time in two different rooms.

*We all missed the field. And yes the answers we gave were the right answer to other fields in use during the test. But the Boards only use a finite number of fields, so this is bound to happen.

* No actual evidence was ever presented. No cheat sheets. No proctor or observer hearing a conversation between candidates. The only evidence was that some of the proctors had a weird feeling about some of the candidates.

The Board votes 7-0 to give us our licenses.

Now, I do not expect the Board to pay for my lawyer, or compensate me for lost wages. It is all water under the bridge at this point. I have a good job lined up in Tampa. But I do not want these false allegations to haunt me for my entire career. Based on the "guilty until proven innocent" attitude of some of the posters, it seems this could well be the case.

Again, do not be so quick to judge when you are no involved and know only a tiny fraction of the facts

-Nate
--
Nathan Bonilla-Warford, OD
ICO 2004
CV at:http://www.bonillawarford.net/cv.html

If some test takers had an advantage over other test takers because they were able to "focus" and narrow it down to a few possible questions that is an unfair advantage.

Imagine yourself in this scenario:
1. $2000 in fees
2. $500 airplane because you are from out of town
3. $300 on a hotel because you are from out of town.
4. $200 on food expenses because you are from out of town.
You fail after studying ALL the material because you don't have a buddy to narrow down the answers. You have to face your friends, family, turn down the job offer you had in Florida, because you didn't have a buddy.

THIS IS NOT ONLY CHEATING ITS CRIMINAL!!

And at the end of the day did the best doctor get picked or the sneakiest doctor get picked. Which one would you like to have in case of an ocular emergency???

Nate, congrats on getting through this ordeal. I know how awful it is to sit and hit refresh on the board website. ;) I feel horrible that some of you had to go through even more ordeal than the 2000 dollar board already is ! :eek:

I'm in Tampa too ! So, if you ever wanna meet some younger, local docs let me know... we get together for dinner sometimes. You'd be welcome :) PM me for details...

What is it that they alleged you did? That's the part I'm not clear on.

Are they saying that you....

1) Had a copy of the test before hand?
2) Colluded with other test takers DURING the test?


I am one of the ODs that was accused in this case. Let me tell you the facts from my point of view:



After 2 days and a dozen phone calls, I am informed that I am being accused of cheating on the visual portion of the test. (I freely admit that I missed the field. I knew I missed they minute I took it. I was nervous and the "the first words out of your mouth after seeing this field is your answer and you cannot change it" tripped me up. It happens.)

I hire a lawyer ($4,200) and fly down to the Board meeting. After reviewing the facts:

* None of the 6 accused know each or had ever interacted, except for two NOVA students who sat during the exam at the exact same time in two different rooms.

*We all missed the field. And yes the answers we gave were the right answer to other fields in use during the test. But the Boards only use a finite number of fields, so this is bound to happen.

* No actual evidence was ever presented. No cheat sheets. No proctor or observer hearing a conversation between candidates. The only evidence was that some of the proctors had a weird feeling about some of the candidates.

The Board votes 7-0 to give us our licenses.

Now, I do not expect the Board to pay for my lawyer, or compensate me for lost wages. It is all water under the bridge at this point. I have a good job lined up in Tampa. But I do not want these false allegations to haunt me for my entire career. Based on the "guilty until proven innocent" attitude of some of the posters, it seems this could well be the case.

Again, do not be so quick to judge when you are no involved and know only a tiny fraction of the facts

-Nate
--
Nathan Bonilla-Warford, OD
ICO 2004
CV at:http://www.bonillawarford.net/cv.html

What is it that they alleged you did? That's the part I'm not clear on.

Are they saying that you....

1) Had a copy of the test before hand?
2) Colluded with other test takers DURING the test?


It is #2. Their theory was something like this:

I go in first session Saturday morning and sit for part (included the VF) in room 1. I miss the VF, but realize my mistake. Then, in between parts 1 and 2, while being observed by monitors, I tell some other candidate, "Hey, in room 1 the VF is X, even though I missed it." So my friend goes into room 1 and says "X" BUT it is now wrong because they switch the fields between rooms in between parts 1 and 2.

So the evidence boils down to this: A person I don't know gave the wrong answer to a VF that was the right answer to the VF that I missed.

Pretty flimsy huh?

-Nate

I'm in Tampa too ! So, if you ever wanna meet some younger, local docs let me know... we get together for dinner sometimes. You'd be welcome :) PM me for details...

Thanks, My wife and I will be moving early January, but will be down there quite a bit in Nov and Dec., staying with inlaws in Tampa Palms. I will surely take you up on your offer.

-Nate

Again, do not be so quick to judge when you are no involved and know only a tiny fraction of the facts


I especially agree with the above statment. This confusing incident can happen to anyone of us at anytime. Thanks for the clarification, although you don't need to justify yourself by any means. The Law is the Law and if everything was clarified with the Boards, that's it; it's nobody's buisness to make judgements later. :)

I can tell you that information about the exam was passed out weeks before. As I elluded to in a post to CPW, there was a list created by people who had taken the test before with all of the differential diagnoses that have shown up in the past. This list was given to the residents at Bascom Palmer when I was there by one of the residents who graduated from NOVA.

Since you ask, yes, I call that cheating. Non Bascom Palmer test takers who weren't "hooked up" were at an unfair disadvantage. This is presicely why Florida Boards had to resort to giving out their own study guide "very recently" as you admit. Due to all that unfair CHEATING.

Since you ask, yes, I call that cheating. Non Bascom Palmer test takers who weren't "hooked up" were at an unfair disadvantage. This is presicely why Florida Boards had to resort to giving out their own study guide "very recently" as you admit. Due to all that unfair CHEATING.

You don't know that that's why they give out a "study guide", don't make gross assumptions... it's not really even a study guide it's a list of about 250 possible differential diagnosis used on the exam. Which, doesn't really narrow things down.

Some people have access to the review at NOVA.. some didn't (like myself). I don't hold it against the people who could go to the review.

You don't know that that's why they give out a "study guide", don't make gross assumptions... it's not really even a study guide it's a list of about 250 possible differential diagnosis used on the exam. Which, doesn't really narrow things down.

Some people have access to the review at NOVA.. some didn't (like myself). I don't hold it against the people who could go to the review.


And you shouldn't make gross asumptions that the "Exclusive Bascom Palmer" notes are 250 possible diagnosis long. For all we know they may be 10 diagnosis and right to the point.

And you shouldn't make gross asumptions that the "Exclusive Bascom Palmer" notes are 250 possible diagnosis long. For all we know they may be 10 diagnosis and right to the point.

Oh please... there's no black helicopter conspiracy theory surrounding the Florida Board. Anyone who studies their Wills and Mass Eye will do just fine on the Board.. that's all I had and I did very well. All you need to know is the format of the exam, which they give you in your application packet which is downlaodable from the board website.

It's just like school.. some people have old tests.. some don't. Life's not fair.

And you shouldn't make gross asumptions that the "Exclusive Bascom Palmer" notes are 250 possible diagnosis long. For all we know they may be 10 diagnosis and right to the point.Let's set the record straight then. The "Exclusive Bascom Palmer" notes were, in fact, not exclusive. They were from NOVA students that got them from previous test takers. Exclusive would imply that only the 5 residents at Bascom Palmer had these notes, when in fact, anyone that knew someone at NOVA had access to them. Furthermore, there were not 10 diagnoses on the list. There were approximately 100 of them. As I stated before several (not all) of them showed up on the test. In looking at the list the board gives at this address: http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/Exam/CIB-OPO-Clinical.pdf it looks very similar to what we had, only longer. Let me also say that at Berkeley, we all had access to old exams and several of the professors repeated questions. No one knew which questions would be repeated, but looking over past exams after preparing for a test, helped to determine how much of the material you learned, and what you needed to go back over. This is very similar to taking a practice OAT exam. You may call this cheating, but I call it a very effective way of studying. After 4 years of studying this way, I managed to get into a strong residency, work for a large OD/MD group, and eventually become the president of a private OD practice. Obviously, I learned the material, retained the knowledge, and proved that I could apply it to patient care. Isn't that what Optometry school is supposed to accomplish?

As to Nate, I congratulate you and all the other doctors that passed the Florida Boards this year. I wouldn't worry about this incident following you around, as most people won't care about some doctors accused of cheating in a case where there was no evidence against you. This will be long forgotten.