Podfather,
I boldly made the statement about the "good 'ol boys" and I am ABPS certified and I have been intimately involved with the ABPS and have served as an oral examiner for many years. So I know exactly what I'm speaking about.
Well I thank you for your service. Many in this profession speak or complain without doing anything for the profession. I have also served as an examiner and a member of the examination committees for many years. When on those committees I personally spent over a month out of my practice (at a loss of income) and away from my family. So I too know what Iam talking about. Examiners are important and give a weekend of their life to the ABPS and without people like you could not do the process. When was the last time you served as an examiner?
I never once stated that anyone was attempting to "fail" the examinees. What I DID state was that there is still a "good 'ol boy" mentality that does exist among many of the ABPS members. Yes, over the years they have cleaned up their act and have brought in a lot of newer, younger blood. But there is still some older blood lurking.
I can categorically say that this "good ol boy" system is an urban legend. Today's committees are populated by predominately younger recently certified members. Just take a look. Are their older folks like me that return from time to time? Sure. I have nevr been a fan of exclusivity and in fact like many "ol boys" have worked tirelessly to bring in new blood. You statement of good ol boy means what? If it doesn't imply failing or exclusivity what does it mean?
In the new ABPS newsletter, the president speaks of the certification and re-certification process and how it is in place to "protect the consumers"/our patients.
However, I find it ironic and hypocritical that those board certified by ABPS prior to 1991 only have to take a "self assessment" examination, while those boarded after that time have to sit down and take a REAL examination that they can potentially fail, which would jeopardize their certification.
How does THAT protect the consumers? Wouldn't it be more intuitive that the doctors boarded prior to 1991 would be the doctors that REALLY should be tested since they are the "older" group that may be ones that were trained the longest time ago and may not be up to date on the newest techniques, etc. But instead, it is the more recently trained/better trained docs that must be re-certified by actually taking a REAL exam to "protect" the consumers and guarantee competence.
Why is this set up in this fashion? Because of the good 'ol boys. They were boarded PRIOR to 1991, so they wanted to protect their OWN ass and not have to sit and take a REAL exam with the possibility of failing that exam and losing their holy certification. They can simply take a "self" exam which means nothing, while everyone else after them has to take a test that really counts and can POTENTIALLY cost them their certification if they don't pass the re-certification test.
How about that those were the rules when pre 1991 people took the test and to change the rules would be unfair? The certification process is a consumer protection only in that it allows patients to know what their DPM who is "board certified" by ABPS in a specific category has done to achieve this category. Had all foot and ankle DPMs been given foot and RRA then you may have a point. That would be "grandfathering". No one has ever been grandfathered. Everyone has takened an exam. Any implication of the former is incorrect. If in 10 years the process changes based upon other medical professions starting to recertify in 5 years should the people who made the commitment to 10 be asked to go to 5? Of course you would agree to that without arguement?
That's just a "little" hypocritical isn't it? Shouldn't ALL the doctors have to take exams to "protect" the consumers to assure that ALL the board certified doctors are competent and up to date?
And by the way, I'm not bitter. I was boarded before 1991 so I don't have to take the real exam. I just think it's completely unfair and ludicrous to make some docs take a real exam and others take a self assessment exam. The rule was made by those already in place to simply protect their own interests and NOT the interest of the public.
No the rule was made in fairness and in a realistic manner to address the changes in the certification process. I am a pre 1991 DPM and have no reason to fear failure. You may not be bitter but you certainly sound bitter.
And to address your statement that the ABPS wants to pass people to collect dues, etc. Well, please remember that it costs about $1,000 to take the exam, so if someone fails they have to spend that money again the following year.
Even though you are "in the know" that statement suggests otherwise. Do you think that the $1000 dollars is profit to the ABPS and that somehow by failing people they benefit. Do you know the cost to fly and accomodate all the committee members to 4 meetings? If the ABPS examines more people( to include failures) we need more examiners. Each examiner costs a plane flight, 2-3 nights accomodation, food, and miscellanous expenses.
I don't believe the ABPS has intentions to fail anyone, but they certainly aren't losing money when people fail and have to retake the exam.
They are not profiting. Assuming a break even on the exam, wouldn't it be better to have a passing candidate who pays dues with little overhead?
So don't accuse me of being someone that's "out of touch" and spouting poison. These are facts that can not be disputed. I HAVE been involved with the ABPS. And although they have moved our profession forward and are an excellent organization, the system of having the diplomates prior to 1991 taking a self assessment exam while all others have to pay a lot of money to take a real exam is simply self serving and hypocritical.
There is no answer you can give that will justify that policy.
One man's logic is another man's poison. Your implications in my opinion are wrong but I will respect yours. Many superficially involved only see the surface do not know why decisions are made and see money only on the income not expense side.
With respect, Podfather
