WHAT IS THE MOST PRUDENT THING TO DO IN THE NURSING SCANDAL
Subject: WHAT IS THE MOST PRUDENT THING TO DO IN THE NURSING SCANDAL—PUT A CLOSURE TO IT OR ANNOUNCE TO THE WORLD MARKETS FOR OUR NURSES THAT WE COULD NOT CONDUCT HONEST EXAMS, NOT JUST IN 2006 BUT ALSO IN PRIOR YEARS?
Perhaps, we should go international--make a clean breast of it before the world markets for our nurses. Let us blow the scandal sky-high, so it will get more attention. Let us not put a prompt closure to it, that may do us more good than harm. Let us not give the benefit of the doubt to 2006 innocent passers—that will do them justice. Let us have a retake that will prolong the case, especially if the passers—or their parents--will fight it all the way up to the Supreme Court. That way, it may even open a can of worms involving even prior years' passers. That maybe very embarrassing to the nursing profession, very difficult to handle on the part of the government, and cannot be solved without collateral damage to the entire nation—but who cares? It seems not the Task force created by the President to look into the scandal, which appears to be saying ugly things without benefit of careful study and evaluation.
A retake is an open admission to our world markets for nurses that we cannot conduct honest examinations--and that impression will apply not just to 2006 but also to prior years' exams. Anybody who says that there were no leakages in past years' exams should tell it to the marines!
If the scandal drags on, it may spill to prior years. The 2006 passers, once they know that they will be forced to retake, may dig into the past to get even with complaining deans, or implore remorseful examiners and review center officials to make a clean breast of it by confessing leakages even in prior years. If that happens, 2006 passers will definitely demand retake even of prior years' exams. How will the government handle that? How will it contravene such demand that, though impractical and disgraceful, is the logical extension of the right against discrimination enshrined in the Bill of Rights?
Indeed, a retake by 2006 passers may open a Pandora's box. So, why not let sleeping dogs lie, or leave well enough alone? Truth hurts, that is why sometimes it is best to simply keep it to ourselves. Let us not shout it before the world markets of our nurses—but we must make sure that what was wrong in the past is corrected in the future.
Mr. Dante Ang seems a disappointment. He maybe worsening the problem instead of solving it. Even before conducting an exhaustive investigation, he already announced to media (like ABS-CBN) that two out of five subjects were compromised and have to be retaken—which is factually wrong. On one subject covered by test 3, only 20 out of 100 questions were invalidated, so the remaining 80% or 80 questions definitely serve the purpose of the examination for that subject—thereby leaving only one subject in doubt, the benefit of which may be reasonably given to the passers.
A retake even of just one remaining subject erroneously assumes that 100% of the passers did not hurdle this last subject . That assumption is simply absurd, against common sense, and probability. It insults the honor graduates of the batch, together with other deserving passers. Look at all prior years' exams and the record will show that always, there were thousands of passers—almost half the annual examinees—so the reasonable and defensible assumption is that the 25,000 failing examinees did not pass it but the 17,000 successful examinees did. Implying that 100% of them did not pass and should retake the remaining subject is simply wrong and contrary to reality! When all examinees during the time of the beloved examiner Dr. Felipe Ollada failed the CPA board exam, the CPA Board of Examiners had to pass the top 100 examinees who obtained the highest failing grades-- rather than come up with a board exam with zero passer! The 100 forced passers were given a uniform grade of 75 percent, thereby making all of them topnochers!
On the erroneous premise that two subjects were compromised instead of just one, Mr. Ang prematurely declared even without careful study that the measure of competence has been lessened. Lessened, all right, but is it enough to warrant a retake? If not, it is better to keep quiet and stop downgrading the 2006 passers because that is unjustly harming them. What's more, is he a nurse who technically knows what competence is required of nurses, not in closed-book exams but in open-book actual practice? Further, did he conduct a review of prior years' exams to see if all subjects were given equal weights, to contravene the gripes of some prior years' examinees who said that too much emphasis was given on a subject that one has to have practically 100% mastery of it, not just 75%, in order to pass the whole exam? Did he take into account that even in NCLEX—apparently the most crucial test of them all--there are only 265 questions, instead of 500 as in the nursing exam, and if 60 of the first 75 questions are correctly answered, the computer automatically declares the examinee as passer and does not go to the extent of checking the answers to the rest of the 265 questions.
At any rate, the nursing scandal can be resolved with minimized harm to the nation—let the Task Force figure it out.
Incidentally, as pointed out in my earlier email on the subject Clue to Resolution of Nursing Scandal… it is better to be a 2006 PASSER who hurdled a 390-question edited exam CLEANSED of DETECTED LEAKED QUESTIONS, than ONE of PRIOR YEARS' PASSERS who hurdled a 500-question exam, all right—but INCLUSIVE of UNDETECTED LEAKAGES!
Media have crucified 2006 passers as "unclean ," and yet, under the foregoing situation, who are "dirtier"--- 2006 passers who passed leakage-cleansed exam, or prior years' passers who passed leakage-inclusive exams?
MARCELO L. TECSON
San Miguel, Bulacan
August 25, 2006
Perhaps, we should go international--make a clean breast of it before the world markets for our nurses. Let us blow the scandal sky-high, so it will get more attention. Let us not put a prompt closure to it, that may do us more good than harm. Let us not give the benefit of the doubt to 2006 innocent passers—that will do them justice. Let us have a retake that will prolong the case, especially if the passers—or their parents--will fight it all the way up to the Supreme Court. That way, it may even open a can of worms involving even prior years' passers. That maybe very embarrassing to the nursing profession, very difficult to handle on the part of the government, and cannot be solved without collateral damage to the entire nation—but who cares? It seems not the Task force created by the President to look into the scandal, which appears to be saying ugly things without benefit of careful study and evaluation.
A retake is an open admission to our world markets for nurses that we cannot conduct honest examinations--and that impression will apply not just to 2006 but also to prior years' exams. Anybody who says that there were no leakages in past years' exams should tell it to the marines!
If the scandal drags on, it may spill to prior years. The 2006 passers, once they know that they will be forced to retake, may dig into the past to get even with complaining deans, or implore remorseful examiners and review center officials to make a clean breast of it by confessing leakages even in prior years. If that happens, 2006 passers will definitely demand retake even of prior years' exams. How will the government handle that? How will it contravene such demand that, though impractical and disgraceful, is the logical extension of the right against discrimination enshrined in the Bill of Rights?
Indeed, a retake by 2006 passers may open a Pandora's box. So, why not let sleeping dogs lie, or leave well enough alone? Truth hurts, that is why sometimes it is best to simply keep it to ourselves. Let us not shout it before the world markets of our nurses—but we must make sure that what was wrong in the past is corrected in the future.
Mr. Dante Ang seems a disappointment. He maybe worsening the problem instead of solving it. Even before conducting an exhaustive investigation, he already announced to media (like ABS-CBN) that two out of five subjects were compromised and have to be retaken—which is factually wrong. On one subject covered by test 3, only 20 out of 100 questions were invalidated, so the remaining 80% or 80 questions definitely serve the purpose of the examination for that subject—thereby leaving only one subject in doubt, the benefit of which may be reasonably given to the passers.
A retake even of just one remaining subject erroneously assumes that 100% of the passers did not hurdle this last subject . That assumption is simply absurd, against common sense, and probability. It insults the honor graduates of the batch, together with other deserving passers. Look at all prior years' exams and the record will show that always, there were thousands of passers—almost half the annual examinees—so the reasonable and defensible assumption is that the 25,000 failing examinees did not pass it but the 17,000 successful examinees did. Implying that 100% of them did not pass and should retake the remaining subject is simply wrong and contrary to reality! When all examinees during the time of the beloved examiner Dr. Felipe Ollada failed the CPA board exam, the CPA Board of Examiners had to pass the top 100 examinees who obtained the highest failing grades-- rather than come up with a board exam with zero passer! The 100 forced passers were given a uniform grade of 75 percent, thereby making all of them topnochers!
On the erroneous premise that two subjects were compromised instead of just one, Mr. Ang prematurely declared even without careful study that the measure of competence has been lessened. Lessened, all right, but is it enough to warrant a retake? If not, it is better to keep quiet and stop downgrading the 2006 passers because that is unjustly harming them. What's more, is he a nurse who technically knows what competence is required of nurses, not in closed-book exams but in open-book actual practice? Further, did he conduct a review of prior years' exams to see if all subjects were given equal weights, to contravene the gripes of some prior years' examinees who said that too much emphasis was given on a subject that one has to have practically 100% mastery of it, not just 75%, in order to pass the whole exam? Did he take into account that even in NCLEX—apparently the most crucial test of them all--there are only 265 questions, instead of 500 as in the nursing exam, and if 60 of the first 75 questions are correctly answered, the computer automatically declares the examinee as passer and does not go to the extent of checking the answers to the rest of the 265 questions.
At any rate, the nursing scandal can be resolved with minimized harm to the nation—let the Task Force figure it out.
Incidentally, as pointed out in my earlier email on the subject Clue to Resolution of Nursing Scandal… it is better to be a 2006 PASSER who hurdled a 390-question edited exam CLEANSED of DETECTED LEAKED QUESTIONS, than ONE of PRIOR YEARS' PASSERS who hurdled a 500-question exam, all right—but INCLUSIVE of UNDETECTED LEAKAGES!
Media have crucified 2006 passers as "unclean ," and yet, under the foregoing situation, who are "dirtier"--- 2006 passers who passed leakage-cleansed exam, or prior years' passers who passed leakage-inclusive exams?
MARCELO L. TECSON
San Miguel, Bulacan
August 25, 2006
ALLELUIA!!! Thank you Marcelo Tecson for this wonderful piece in behalf of the 2006 passers. I'm speechless. Again, thank you for defending us.
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:02 PM
bravo!!! all i can say is bravo!!!
Posted by
Anonymous |
4:53 PM
if only Mr Ang, tadle and the so called prestigious skul thot like u...
but then again,only COMPETENT NURSES think alike.
to tadle, KINDLY EXPLAIN R.A 9173.. BLEHEHEHEH!
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:09 PM
me ebidensya k ba na me leakage sa mga past exams? june 2006? me ebidensya na me leakage. past exam? wala nooooh.....
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:30 PM
do u have evidences to prove that the past batch indeed have a leakage?
why not spil it out if u do?
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:01 PM
MAY LEAKAGE!!! MAY LEAKAGE!!! MAY LEAKAGE ANG PREVIOUS BOARD EXAMS BWAHAHAHAHA
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:18 PM
MAY LEAKAGE!!! MAY LEAKAGE!!! MAY LEAKAGE ANG PREVIOUS BOARD EXAMS BWAHAHAHAHA KAYA IN OTHER WORDS INCOMPETENT LAHAT NG FILIPINO NURSES BWAHAHAHAHA SUPOT!!!
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:20 PM
I don't think walang leakge in the previous boards...Meron... Wala lang nagsumbong.. Besides, I have taken the CPA board and know of people who took other boards and proctored various boards... Name any board and there will be rumors of leakage... When there is smoke there is fire... No one shouted "FIRE!" before the June 2006 exmas...
Also let me share a story....
A Fili[ino nurse working in the US was asked by an American co-worker... "Did you also cheat in your exams and got away with it?"... Evidence or no evidence the competence of all Filipino nurses have been compromised... Retake or no retake Filipino nurses will one way or another have to suffer being the subject of puns... The damage has been done...
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:11 PM
Tanga na lang ang magsabing walang leakage ang dating mga exams.
Kaya nga nahuli yung mga mandarayang mga yan eh, kasi, lagi-lagi na sila nakalulusot at talamak na ang dayaan. Masyado na silang naging careless sa pandaraya nila dahil walang nagsusumbong.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:55 PM
Kung yung 2 BON na nahuli ay mapatunayang nandaya, hindi natin alam kung kailan sila nagsimulang mandaya. Bakit yung 2006 batch lang ang pinag-iinitan nila? Maliwanag na may injustice
Posted by
Anonymous |
10:01 PM
Those who received leakages in prior years cannot speak out because in the process they will SELF-DESTRUCT, this is the only reason why the TRUTH about the past remains hidden.
Pero pag nagtagal ang issue, hindi pa rin tayo nakasisiguro na hindi lilitaw yan. Puedeng lumitaw yan sa investigation ng suspected EXAMINERS and REVIEW CENTER OFFICIALS pag matinik ang imbestigador at kasama yan sa object ng investigation!
In one example, there was leakage but it was useless to the examinee who knew the answers with or without leakage--but who would believe that? The examinee, a consistent honor student, reviewed hard for almost a year and was quite prepared for the exam successfully passed.
Pero kung mapilit kayo, bakit hindi nyo ipa-grill ng husto yung mga suspected examiners, review center officials, their staff, and others depending on leads gathered. Ask them to take lie detector tests, etc. Kung magaling ang assigned investigators--LILITAW PATI PRIOR YEARS !!!
Pero iyan ay kung gusto ninyong mag SELF-DESTRUCT ang nursing profession ng bansa.
Mag-announce lang na magre-retake ang passers ng prior years pag may lumitaw na leakage sa time nila--posibleng may tumanggap ng hamon at magsalita, halimbawa yung di pumasa kahit may leakage....
Posted by
Anonymous |
10:35 PM
Sa 2006 may leakage nga, eh tinanggal na nga sa pag-compute ng grades yung leakage, kaya if we speak of 2006 passers, they are those who passed the exam without the benefit of leakage!!!! So, puede sila taas noong magsabi--passer ako fair and square.
Pero yung prior years, may leakage din, may nakaka-alam niyan--at yung leakage ay di tinanggal sa computation ng grades nila--mahirap ba itong intindihin?
At huwag kayong maghamon, dahil baka may tumanggap ng hamon!!!! Sabi nga, that may blow the scandal sky-high!
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:01 PM
First of all , saying there were leakages from previous exams is purely speculative. Secondly, assuming that is true, it does not justify the leakage now. It is just too bad sa mga honest ones dahil ngayon lang lumabas, but good dahil hopefully yung system mailagay sa magnifying glass.
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:27 AM
okay lang kahit ano sbhin nyo basta pumasa kami and we dont need a retake.... and wag sana magsalita ang dean ng uste about competence kasi hinde nya alam ang meaning nun eh, tingin nila nasusukat ang pagiging competent ng isang tao sa june board. Fyi dean, according to Patricia Benner, it took 2 to 3 years of experience before ka maging competent, im sure hinde mo alam yan DANTE ANG kasi isa kalang namang KURAKOT NA IPIS EH..... Its not nursing integrity ang ipinaglalaban mo DEAN, ur integrity coz hinde mo maaccept na in your terms bumaba ang percentage ng passing rate nyo.... ABout NCLEX DANTE ANG, im sure inaabangan mo yung dollars na pwede mong kitain pag nagbayad ang americano diba..... wag na kayo magpaikot, bistado na ang baho nyo....
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:14 AM
Oo nga naman, may ipis yung sopas, yikes! Tapon lahat yun 'no? Palitan, palitan, palitan. Alangan naman, kutsarahin ko lang yung part na may ipis bago kainin ung iba. Simply UNACCEPTABLE!
Posted by
Anonymous |
3:14 AM
PAGING MR. ANG, ET AL
Saying that there was leakage in prior years' exams is NOT SPECULATIVE, it is a FACT. I know it because I also took a board exam. If only I could reveal it without harming myself and others who are innocent despite it.
During the first day, we were told: "The rain did not fall." Up to now, these words still echo in my ears.
But in the next, it was different. However, I passed not because of it, because even in college I had grades of A or flat 1.
Those who think that there were no leakages in prior years which is why they are so harsh on June 2006 passers maybe plain cruel and NAIVE--and that may include Mr. Dante Ang who, it seems, is not an expert in decision-making. It shows. WHY NOT ASK HIM TO RESPOND ON A POINT-BY-POINT BASIS TO WHAT MARCELO TECSON SAID, so we can see?
If naive people serve the GOVERNMENT, what can we expect?
They may not even realize that the one they are serving in Malacanang is the one who might have really benefited from CHEATING--that is, election cheating--and, therefore, more than the June 2006 passers, is the who need not retake but RE-ELECTION!!!
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:16 AM
AN INCOMPETENT INCOMPETENTLY
JUDGING THE COMPETENCE OF THOSE
MORE COMPETENT THAN HIM?
Is that not what is going on in the nursing scandal?
Under the circumstances, such as the passers hurdling the rest of valid exam questions in other subjects as against 25,000 others who did not make it, leaving 80 out of 100 questions in Test 3 reasonably serves the purpose of the exam as far as the ONE SINGLE SUBJECT of this test is concerned. Even in NCLEX, passing the first 75 questions on a VARIETY OF SUBJECTS (that is, less than the remaining 80 valid questions on just ONE subject in the 2006 nursing exam) is enough for the computer to declare that the examinee passes--and that is done even if the computer will not get tired of going all the way to the last question--because there is no use in going further, there is no use in wasting time, there is already enough basis for a decision--passing that relatively few number of questions already serves the purpose of NCLEX as far as the passing examinee is concerned.
Is Mr. Dante Ang more competent on the matter than the NCLEX experts who designed this test scheme? Not necessarily--and that is, not because he is not intelligent but because he is not a nurse! In fact, the 17,000 nursing exam passers are obviously more competent than him on the matter of nursing COMPETENCE.
If so, don't we have a case then of an INCOMPETENT, Mr. Dante Ang, who, precisely because of his INCOMPETENCE on the matter, INCOMPETENTLY makes a ruling that 17,000 successful passers are not COMPETENT enough to pass Test 3, thereby giving him the ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION that TWO subjects out of FIVE were irreversibly damaged by leakage in the June 2006 exam?
An erroneous premise of course leads to an erroneous ruling, thereby giving us the seeming spectacle of the INCOMPETENT judging the COMPETENT! If so,
what absurdity!
MARCELO L. TECSON
Quezon City and
San Miguel, Bulacan
August 27, 2006
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:24 AM
Someone said, even if it is true that there were leakages in the past, it does not justify the leakage now.
Of course, it doesn't--but it justifies RETAKE by prior years' passers if 2006 passers would be forced to retake....
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:35 AM
God bless you! Napakaganda po Mr. Marcelo Tecson..You really boosted my confidence..iam one of the passers of 2006 and very worried about what's happening, i was about to lose hope until i've read what you have written..and made me smile, it really did..that issue is one of the reasons why until now i am still unemployed and cannot help my family kahit sa pambayad man lang ng kuryente...pkiramdam ko nasira na ang buong kinabukasan ko..salamat sa pagbibigay ng napakagandang komento....MWAAHHHHH!
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:29 PM
hahahahaha... napanood ko yang tungkol sa ipis, iba ang sitwasyon ng may ipis sa sopas sa nangyayari ngayon.. kung sabagay how can that person speak about the issue eh hindi naman nya naiintindihan ang mga bagay bagay tungkol sa nursing.. it's not really the exam that can say how competent a nurse can be..its in the experience.. you can only prove yourself in the battlefield...kung gusto nyo palitan palitan at palitan ang nangyari sa exam, kayo ang gumastos sa exam ulet namin, pamasahe, pagkain, transient house, para naman hindi na kami mangutang..mdali para sa mga taga UST sabihin ang retake kasi karamihan sa kanila mayayaman, eh pano kaming mahihirap? If i know gusto lang magretake dahil para mabgyan ulet sila ng pag-asa para sa TAKE 1..dahil lang ba sa hindi sa kanila nanggaling ang topnotcher? oh c'mon minamaliit nila kaming mga promdi..sila lang ba my karapatang magtop? come to think of it!!! Sariling interest lang pinaglalaban ng mga mokong na yan!!!!!
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:07 PM
mawalang galang sayo mr. tecson...i admire your writing skills. however,you lean towards an opinion that it is better to be silent rather than reveal what had happened to last june 2006 exam. can you not consider the evidence that surfaced? can you not consider the testimony of numerous witnesses? can you not give credence to the findings of no less than the PRC itself that there were irregularities in the last exam? can you not consider that PRC impliedly admitted that there was leakage/cheating? have you heard the general principle of law that "falsus uno falsus in omnibus? while there is a presumption of regularity that should be applied to the June 2006 NLE; neverhteless, such presumption is disputable, especially so in this case that there are evidence surfacing which lead to a fact that there was cheating in the last examination. Consequently, the aforementioned presumption of regularity has been put to test by reason of proof to the contrary. you may have a point that there may be the same kind of cheating, fraud, irregularity, etc in the previous examinations; nevertheless, since there were no people or entities who questioned the integrity of such previous examination, presumption of regularity would inevitably apply. that is the basic difference between the June 2006 NLE and previous NLE's. likewise, have you heard the principle of res judicata which means that once a judgment has become final and executory no matter how erroneous it may be, still, it is entitled to respect accorded to a valid decision. By analogy, considering that the previous NLE's, assuming without admitting that tere were similar irregularities,had not been put to test or assailed for being tainted with fraud, they should be respected for it would be unfair to question them at this particular moment when their validity had long been confirmed and affirmed. for me, i am not a nurse or an examinee in the last june 2006, you decide or conclude on the basis of facts and not on what your emotions dictate you to do so, more so if the issue is public in nature. thank you and peace to all!!! mas mahirap pa ang examination ko sa inyo at hindi under ng PRC, salamat naman....hehehehe
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:03 PM
To someone who responded, thanks for your comments--that is a step towards the quest for truth and justice. Apparently, you belong to the profession the exams for which were tainted by scandal not only during the recent time of a Supreme Court Justice but also during the Marcos regime, when my neighbor years ago in San Miguel, Bulacan was disbarred in the process, but who, later, rose from the ashes of his ruined reputation.
Anyway, because we are not God who can see and know everything, WE CANNOT ALWAYS ATTAIN JUSTICE if we FOLLOW THE LAW because its aim is not only to DISPENSE JUSTICE but also AVOID INJUSTICE--such as in the saying that let the guilty 100 escape than have the innocent one punished. While such AVOIDANCE OF INJUSTICE is a form itself of JUSTICE TO THE INNOCENT, it is INJUSTICE TO THE VICTIMS OF THE GUILTY who cannot be punished under the law for technical reasons or lack of witnesses or evidence. Thus, we have cases involving government officials when the apparent guilty parties hide behind the law, or behind technicality--but that does not stop the victims from feeling aggrieved, from airing grievances, and a government that does not listen to them does so only at its peril.
You are right, we have "facts" of CHEATING in the 2006 exam--but these "facts" are limited to only some people and to just part of the exam. If 100 percent of the examinees and 100 percent of the exam were tainted, go ahead, let us recommend a retake tomorrow!
But such is not the case. That is why, I find it strange that the foregoing dictum, let the GUILTY ESCAPE than the INNOCENT PUNISHED, is ignored in the nursing scandal. Here, the suspected culprits are identified, to the exclusion of the innocent. Which is why, in this case, I am NOT even RECOMMENDING that the GUILTY ESCAPE for the SAKE OF THE INNOCENT. I am recommending RUNNING AFTER the suspected CULPRITS to the fullest extent of the law--but at the same time SPARING the INNOCENT because in this particular case, THESE TWO OPTIONS DO NOT EXCLUDE EACH OTHER, they can be BOTH PURSUED and done at the same time.
Under the "facts" of the case where the culprits maybe identified and separated from the innocent, we can apply the win-win solution of PUNISHING THE GUILTY and SPARING THE INNOCENT. However, as was seen, the Presidential Task Force immediately and recklessly recommended partial retake, with nary an effort to, at the very least, hear the side of the innocent passers who deserve government protection, not to say conducting expeditious if limited public hearings. Also, you know how it is, one may not be forced to do so, but if his honor is challenged, he may waive his rights. Of course, not all rights can be waived. Moreover, even if those concerned in OLD cases cannot be punished under the law because they can now hide behind it, they can be punished by way of destroyed reputation and lack of moral ascendancy to ostracize and take action against the 2006 passers.
I have an idea as to how it is in board exams because I happened to passed one--the kind of board exam in bygone years of my seniors in the profession that seemed so difficult because none of the examinees actually passed, and yet the Board did not declare zero passer! However, unlike you, I cannot dare say that it is more difficult than the exams for other courses because I do not have any basis for comparison--I did not study other courses, I did not take their exams. I suppose you did.
MARCELO L. TECSON
August 27, 2006
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:01 AM
AMM HINDI BA IMPORTANTE NA ANG WITNESSES AY MGA BAGSAK? hindi ba yan pinapansin?
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:51 AM
hahahaha! SHAME ON YOU, LAWYER! You do not even have the guts to post your name....Magmayabang ba?
Buti nlang may mga taong gaya ni Mr. Tecson na matalino at nag iisip... Hindi lang para sa sarili nya kundi para sa nakakarami....
SHAME ON YOU!
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:58 PM
O ano? naintindihan mo na ba ang nais iparating ni Mr Tecson.
hahahaha! Lawyer ka nga kaya?
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:00 AM
How dare this CHINESE MAN to speak of these 17,821 FILIPINO nurses who passed the board exams last June, when he is not even a Filipino citizen? How dare him sacrifice US just for the sake of impressing the INTERNATIONAL community? He doesn’t even know how the NCLEX works! He doesn’t have the slightest idea actually.
For those people who kept on pushing for a retake and claiming that PRC is not a credible Institution, How can they even say that, when this was the INSTITUTION that they affirmed to, witnessed their oath and issued their LICENSE few years ago. Then, Its just as good as saying….”You are not a credible individual yourself.” THINK ABOUT IT.
For those people who are saying that, we should just take the exams AGAIN…. We prepared for it anyway….WHOAAAA! Easy for you to say that because you are not the one who went through hell just to pass that exam & spent endless days and nights of worrying whether you passed that exams or not. YOU CAN NEVER TELL… You might be the cream of the crop…..You might even be the CUM LAUDE of your University….but you can never tell.
June 2006 Passer
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:01 AM
During my time, one magna cum laude and about four cum laudes from our school failed our board exam (not nursing). Topnotcher (first place) was our school's summa cum laude of the previous year who postponed her exam because she felt she was not fully prepared yet, while another summa was 18th place or just in the top 20. She was beaten by some cum laudes in our school who made it to the top ten.
So, truly, one can never tell whether he will pass or not. If the exam asked the relatively few questions that he failed to focus on in his review, rather than the many more things that he knew, then the examinee, even if bright, may fail. Passing the exam has an element of luck in it.
So the 2006 nursing exam passers should not be cheated of what they earned through both hard work and luck. Nobody has a right to take it away from them--not Mr. Dante Ang, not the complaining deans, not anybody else...
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:24 AM
im proud to be a june '06 passer...God is my witness that i did not cheat...thank you Mr. Marcelo!
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:46 AM
im proud to be a june '06 passer...God is my witness that i did not cheat...thank you Mr. Marcelo!
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:47 AM