Rene,
 
Ouch!!!  
 
Lighten up!
 
I never accepted or condoned cheating!  Of course it is immoral! Only a 
sociopath would honestly believe otherwise.I never used the words you quoted me 
as saying. 
 
Cheating was one of the two reasons (cost being the other) that you yourself 
stated was a motive for ASCP dropping the practical. 
 
Maybe I wasn't totally clear.
 
What I proposed was that cheating was never at the scale or magnitude that it 
would be a viable reason for ASCP to dismiss the practical exam. I'm sure it 
occasionally occured, but I also believe in the basic goodness of human beings, 
so I'm pretty sure it was miniscule in proportion to those who completed their 
practicals in dignity and with honesty. My point is that it was not a 
reasonable justification to end the practical. If you have concrete proof, 
fine, I'd love to see it. If it is your opinion, fine, everyone has them, but 
don't confuse them.
 
BTW "moral terpitude" is a redundant phrase, though an interesting choice. 
(Smile, Rene....no more flames. I didn't deserve it and besides.......it's 
Friday and I don't have the energy to joust. I'll be better rested on Monday).
 
William (Bill) O'Donnell, HT (ASCP) QIHC 
Lead Histologist
Good Samaritan Hospital
10 East 31st Street
Kearney, NE 68847 

________________________________

From: Rene J Buesa [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:37 PM
To: Histonet; O'Donnell, Bill
Subject: RE: [Histonet] Practical Exam


Bill:
In my time when you accepted somebody else doing YOUR job and YOU being 
remunerated or accredited for it was called CHEATING and that is a moral 
turpitude issue, and really a problem, not as you say that was "not much of a 
problem"!.
René J.

--- On Fri, 2/20/09, O'Donnell, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:


        From: O'Donnell, Bill <[email protected]>
        Subject: RE: [Histonet] Practical Exam
        To: "Histonet" <[email protected]>
        Date: Friday, February 20, 2009, 11:00 AM
        
        
        If, indeed, these were the two primary reasons for eliminating the 
practical
        exam, they are weak and lazy reasons. An increase in the fee to apply 
would
        cover costs, and, well, was it really that much of a problem of people 
doing
        other peoples practicals. 
        
        I can't imagine it to be out of proportion to what might (I emphasize
        "might" and add "but likely did not") have occurred   sporadically in 
all the years prior.
        
        I won't pass judgement on a single source, but would love to hear from
        someone who was a part of the decision process that eliminated this 
practicum.
        
        However, if it is true, my estimation of the ASCP has grossly 
deteriorated.
        
        William (Bill) O'Donnell, HT (ASCP) QIHC 
        Lead Histologist
        Good Samaritan Hospital
        10 East 31st Street
        Kearney, NE 68847 
        
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: [email protected]
        [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rene J 
Buesa
        Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 8:01 AM
        To: Victor Tobias; Histonet; Rittman, Barry R
        Subject: RE: [Histonet] Practical Exam
        
        There were 2 fundamental reasons why ASCP eliminated the practical part 
of the
        examination:
        1- they got to the conclusion that there was no way to determine if the 
person
        sending the slides was the one who really made them, and
        2- it was getting too costly to send the slides to review or to gather 
the
        reviewers to qualify the sections, so they decided to eliminate the 
practical
        and made the changes we have now (renewal and CEU).
        René J.
        
        --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Rittman, Barry R <[email protected]>
        wrote:
        
        From: Rittman, Barry R <[email protected]>
        Subject: RE: [Histonet] Practical Exam
        To: "Victor Tobias" <[email protected]>,
        "Histonet" <[email protected]>
        Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 6:30 PM
        
        Victor
        I cannot believe that you have said this.
        Although I did not think that the practical examination was the 
ultimate test
        of skill ,  it did at least provide some uniformity.
        With an extension of the logic that you use it is just as easy to allow 
the
        pathologist to certify that the technician is qualified even without a 
written
        examination. 
        Without a somewhat standardized practical there is no guarantee that the
        technician will have any practical knowledge outside their individual
        laboratory.
        Didactic without adequate practical knowledge is, as far as I am 
concerned,
        useless.
        What is really needed is a national standardized written and practical 
test
        that is administered by NSH.
        I am not holding my breath that this will happen.
        Barry 
        
        ________________________________________
        From: [email protected]
        [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Victor Tobias
        [[email protected]]
        Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 5:03 PM
        To: Histonet
        Subject: [Histonet] Practical Exam
        
        There has been discussion regarding the removal of the practical exam.
        To me it has not been removed, but the responsibility has shifted to 
whomever
        signs off on the student. In the case of OJT, the pathologist has 
verified that
        this student can cut and stain. Of course what is acceptable to one 
pathologist
        may not be to another. Do they get tested in the art of 
troubleshooting...... As
        far as the schools go, they shouldn't be graduating anyone that can't
        cut, stain and troubleshoot.
        So I don't really see a problem with the absence of the practical. It is
        Friday somewhere.
        
        Victor
        
        --
        Victor Tobias
        Clinical Applications Analyst
        University of Washington Medical Center
        Dept of Pathology Room BB220
        1959 NE Pacific
        Seattle, WA 98195
        [email protected]
        206-598-2792
        206-598-7659 Fax
        =================================================
        Privileged, confidential or patient identifiable information may be 
contained
        in this message. This information is meant only for the use of the 
intended
        recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, or if the message 
has been
        addressed to you in error, do not read, disclose, reproduce, distribute,
        disseminate or otherwise use this transmission. Instead, please notify 
the
        sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the message and 
any
        attachments.
        
        
        _______________________________________________
        Histonet mailing list
        [email protected]
        http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
        _______________________________________________
        Histonet mailing list
        [email protected]
        http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
        
        
        
              
        _______________________________________________
        Histonet mailing list
        [email protected]
        http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
        
        
        _______________________________________________
        Histonet mailing list
        [email protected]
        http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet


_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

Reply via email to