Oral boards to move from Louisville

[arthurdent]

Per Bruce Hafty in the ABR newsletter:
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs166/1102498794338/archive/1112943927409.html#LETTER.BLOCK34

"While the entire ABR (diagnostic radiology, radiation oncology, and medical physics) underwent all these major transitions over the past decade together, our colleagues in diagnostic radiology (DR) experienced an even greater transformation in moving away from the oral examination to a final certification exam that is entirely computer based. This June will be the last full oral examination for the DR group in Louisville.

Although we in radiation oncology considered the possibility of transitioning to a computer-based examination, we have decided that given the nature of our specialty, an oral examination should remain an essential component in our certification process. In 2015 we will move from Louisville to an examination center in Dallas, which was designed specifically for oral examinations by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Although we will all miss the traditions and stories of our Louisville experiences, we look forward to transitioning to this state-of-the-art oral examination venue."

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted4401]

Good friggin' riddance to that place...

 

[seper]

Disagree. Louisville was easy to get in/out, small friendly airport, cheap transportation and cluster of hotels, etc. Perfect for those 24 hours in life that one never forgets.

 

[Gfunk6]

At least Dallas has a major airport and is located centrally in the US.

 

[medgator]

Disagree. Louisville was easy to get in/out, small friendly airport,

Small and friendly doesn't equal a convenient airport

At least Dallas has a major airport and is located centrally in the US.

Yup. The only problem is you can't fly into Dallas directly using southwest

 

[temujim]

Small and friendly doesn't equal a convenient airport



Yup. The only problem is you can't fly into Dallas directly using southwest

Wright amendment expires next year. Southwest will most likely expand the number of direct flights into/out of Dallas Love Field at that point.

 

[Brim]

Good friggin' riddance to that place...

 

[Radonc90]

I took the oral exam in the 1990s, the problem with Louisville is that: most people would have to transfer from another hub (such as Chicago airport), so it adds to the cost.

At least Dallas is American Airlines hub, this way many people from big cities can take a direct flight.

To oral or not to oral. Many medical specialties follow the foot steps of Internal Medicine that got rid of oral years ago for a variety of reasons, with discrimination being one. I think the Radiology folks are getting rid of oral soon.

I have mixed feeling about oral exam, personally I don't think the oral makes one become a better physician. It may pick out a weak candidate, but it can also intimidate the candidate that his/her performance is negatively affected.

When I took my oral in the 1990s, some of my examiners were unimpressive.

 

[Pewl]

The ABR newsletters last year announced that starting 2015 the rad onc orals would be moved to March in Dallas starting in 2015. But, if you look at the most recent updates to the ABR site they still have 2015 oral boards listed as May in Louisville.

http://www.theabr.org/all-dates

Does anyone think they forgot to update it correctly yet?

 

[iradi8u]

The ABR newsletters last year announced that starting 2015 the rad onc orals would be moved to March in Dallas starting in 2015. But, if you look at the most recent updates to the ABR site they still have 2015 oral boards listed as May in Louisville.

http://www.theabr.org/all-dates

Does anyone think they forgot to update it correctly yet?

I actually came to SDN tonight to ask if anyone else had noticed this. My plan was to take the boards next year, when they would be in Dallas, but now they're listed as Louisville. What gives?

 

[arthurdent]

Have heard from a few folks that the move to Dallas has been postponed - the ABR site is seemingly correct (May 2015 in Louisville)

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Bump* what gives? I could have sworn I wouldn't be going to Louisville this year!

Also in regards to strategy, how many cases can I fail to not have to repeat a section... Is it all or none or does it depend on which case I fail or how bad I did on that specific case or section as a whole? The subjective nature of this exam boggles me.

 

[arthurdent]

last I heard (which was a while ago), it was "indefinitely" postponed...so, it looks like many classes to come will be able to enjoy the luxurious Crown Plaza at the Louisville airport!

 

[napoleondynamite]

Bump* what gives? I could have sworn I wouldn't be going to Louisville this year!

Also in regards to strategy, how many cases can I fail to not have to repeat a section... Is it all or none or does it depend on which case I fail or how bad I did on that specific case or section as a whole? The subjective nature of this exam boggles me.

My recollection of how the scoring works (please fact check me anyone, it's been a few years):

You can condition/fail 2 sections and just come back to repeat those 1-2 sections the following year. 3 or more and you repeat the entire exam.

Sections are scored from 68-72. A score of 70 is passing. 71-72 is "honors," which you might think doesn't matter..but it actually can. If you get say a 69 in one section, normally that would condition you for that section. But when all of the examiners get together and if you got several stellar sections and one that you 69'd, those higher scores could bring you up to a 70 if the group of examiners lobbies for you that you knew your stuff in every other section..everybody can have a bad day, so there is at least SOME grace on the exam. My understanding is that a score of 68 is an automatic condition, no lobbying will help you..unless maybe in an extreme circumstance where you honored everything else and the group would have to really over-ride an examiner that they are being unfair or something.

Anyway, I can't even remember who explained that to me and some of it may not be wholly accurate, but that is my recollection of things.

 

[Gfunk6]

I heard the same as ND but on my oral board score report I did not see those numbers referenced. Are they only part of the deliberative process?

 

[medgator]

I heard the same as ND but on my oral board score report I did not see those numbers referenced. Are they only part of the deliberative process?

Yes, I believe so and concur with what ND posted.

 

[radiaterMike]

I heard the same as ND but on my oral board score report I did not see those numbers referenced. Are they only part of the deliberative process?

The institution where you trained gets the scores but not the test taker.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Bequerel]

i took the exam last year. I don't think the examiners meet at at the end of the exam as in years past. I was in the last section on the last day and overheard some of my examiners on the shuttle talking about the change. There was obviously no meeting after my exam as the examiners were on the same shuttle as me that left a couple minutes after exam was over. I think scoring, 68-72, is same, I just don't think there is a meeting where examiners can argue for a certain person who may have scored lower on a section. Perhaps it's slightly more standardized now.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile[/QUOTE]

 

[napoleondynamite]

i took the exam last year. I don't think the examiners meet at at the end of the exam as in years past. I was in the last section on the last day and overheard some of my examiners on the shuttle talking about the change. There was obviously no meeting after my exam as the examiners were on the same shuttle as me that left a couple minutes after exam was over. I think scoring, 68-72, is same, I just don't think there is a meeting where examiners can argue for a certain person who may have scored lower on a section. Perhaps it's slightly more standardized now.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

[/QUOTE]

Interesting. I tend to think the group meeting actually was more of a standardized process than if they don't meet and you get one rogue examiner (as I did for H&N) with all the authority in the world over your pass/fail. If no one else knows what really goes on in that room, hard to standardize things really.. My understanding of the process before was that if an examiner was going to fail/condition you for a section, they would present their rationale for that decision to the group in their post-meeting.

Good luck to all y'all. The grass is definitely greener after that is over.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Oh man, that sucks! I can see a miscommunication or misunderstanding happening. I would prefer to have a group of folks discuss my overall performance versus one examiner's input.

 

[Bequerel]

I think the days of the examiner trying to screw the test taker are over. Just look at the pass rate for the oral exam for first time test takers over the past 3 years, 88, 93 and 89%! That's almost radbio rate!!!

 

[thesauce]

I think the days of the examiner trying to screw the test taker are over. Just look at the pass rate for the oral exam for first time test takers over the past 3 years, 88, 93 and 89%! That's almost radbio rate!!!

But does that include "conditional pass?" It's still technically a "pass," right? I know quite a few that have conditioned.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

How in the world do you honor a section. Do you mention trials that haven't been published yet? Do you make the examiner question his or herself?

I can't imagine Nancy Lee saying to me "you're awesome, why haven't I thought of that!"

 

[mpdoc2]

How in the world do you honor a section. Do you mention trials that haven't been published yet? Do you make the examiner question his or herself?

I can't imagine Nancy Lee saying to me "you're awesome, why haven't I thought of that!"

You're more likely to fail than honor if you have the examiner questioning himself