By all means, fall in love but not with yourself By Dr. Dante Ang
By all means, fall in love but not with yourself
(Speech delivered by Dr. Dante Ang before UST students)
Manila Times
First of three parts
I trust that by now, most of the students at the University of Sto. Tomas must be familiar with the raging controversy that enveloped the recently concluded nursing board examination and its attendant issues.
Briefly, cheating did indeed occur in Tests 3 and 5 of the exam.
The leaked manuscripts came from two members of the Board of Nursing. One blamed poor health; the other, outright ignorance.
The manuscripts eventually found their way to the Gapuz, Inress and Pentagon review centers.
In Baguio City all available photocopy shops were contracted and reams upon reams of leaked questions were photocopied and ultimately distributed to the examinees. For a fee, I suppose.
In Manila the Inress review center had its “final coaching” held at the SM Megamall, attended by some 22 deans of nursing colleges, whose identities remain unknown at this writing. A number of reviewers also attended the coaching session.
Despite the admission of leakages, the Philippine Regulatory Commission (PRC), the Board of Nursing (BON) and some “successful” examinees refused to admit that the June 2006 Board exam has become unreliable and that it has subsequently tainted all participants, including the honest ones.
The PRC and BON insist that they have cleansed the examination of the virus and, therefore, its integrity remains intact. Some of those who passed the test agree with this assessment and are saying that they should be allowed to take their oath and their license issued in the interest of fairness.
“Punish the guilty and spare the innocent. No retake,” so goes the “cry for justice” of the board and the commission.
But in asking for a retake, are we sparing the guilty and punishing the innocent?
Consider this. Didn’t the PRC and BON punish the innocent when the test grades and assigned weights were recomputed, thus effectively lowering the passing average and eroding the level of competence of those who passed the nursing board?
Didn’t the PRC and BON punish the innocent when, in their haste to prevent the cheaters from benefiting from the leak, they invalidated 20 questions for Test 3 and reduced the percent weight for Test 5 from 20 to 10, thereby lowering the passing average and consigning those who must have excelled in the exam to the level of mediocrity?
Didn’t the PRC and BON punish the innocent when in their scramble to cover their incompetence, they gave a 2-percent bonus to the examinees, allowing 1,600 flunkers to pass, throwing the unqualified in the ranks of the competent ones?
Didn’t the PRC and BON punish the innocent and damage the interests of the honest nurses by lumping the cheats and the innocent together, tainting the integrity of professional nurses and jeopardizing their employability here and abroad?
Forked tongue
To confuse the public and obviate the relevant issues, the PRC and BON resorted to employing an American and a Filipina partner who tried to mislead our nurses by announcing publicly that “the 17,000 and 1,000 nurses are hired provided they pass NCLEX.” As the Indian would say in a Western movie: “Pale face speaks with forked tongue.”
In the first place, the two are outright recruiters. They have no power to hire nurses for employment to the United States. Note their qualifier: “After passing the NCLEX and interview with the American hospital.”
And there lies the problem. In the first place, I am not very optimistic that the incompetents will pass the NCLEX. And even if they did, I doubt if they could hurdle the personal interview where core competence, attitude, work ethic and values are the main focus of the one-on-one meeting.
All right, I’ll grant that even the incompetents can make it to the United States. Good luck. After all, the PRC and BON say that there are other modes of determining the core competency of the nurses, like school records and clinical experience.
(To be continued)
By all means, fall in love but not with yourself part II
Manila Times
(Dr. Dante A. Ang’s speech before University of Santo Tomas students)
Second of three parts
All right, I’ll grant that even the incompetents can make it to the United States. Good luck. After all, the PRC and BON say that there are other modes of determining the core competency of the nurses, like school records and clinical experience.
That being the case, perhaps we should abolish the PRC. Following its logic, the commission has become superfluous, an unnecessary bureaucratic layer and an added burden to our professionals. May I remind the PRC that, like the Central Bank, it is the repository of public trust, of confidence, of integrity. It sets the national standard of excellence for our board exams.
Instead of correcting their mistakes, what did the PRC and BON do? They tried to inveigle the nurses into believing that, contrary to the general notion, the nurses are not suffering from any form of stigma and that jobs await them here and in countries abroad.
To prove that point, the PRC presented an American recruiter and a Filipina partner who said that they are hiring the June 2006 batch, all 17,000 of them. Yet in the same breath, the recruiter said, provided our nurses pass the NCLEX and the personal interview. This is B.S.
Did you know that recruiters are paid by the American hospitals $100 for each referral and from $7,000 to $10,000 for each nurse recruited? You may want to ask: how many of our nurses have signed up with this American recruiter and his partner?
Oh yes, this American and his partner would want us to believe that their hearts are bleeding for the Filipino nurses, except that they are crying all the way to the bank.
I wonder if they have secured a written approval from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration to advertise their job vacancies. Maybe they did. But to announce on television that 17,000 or even 1,000 are hired even before these nurses could fill out an application form, their act must be more than a violation of the POEA rules; it is an outright lie!
I’d say, throw these “vultures” out of the country for living off the misery of our nurses and for engaging in double talk, invariably raising false hopes among the nurses. If that’s not a crime, what is?
I can go on and on with the list of how the PRC and BON have inflicted harm, how they have tarred the integrity and image of our honest and competent nurses. But let us set that aside momentarily and talk briefly about the June 2006 batch whose interests, according to the PRC, BON and some successful examinees, will be prejudiced if they retake Tests 3 and 5.
“No retake. Punish the guilty. Spare the innocent,” cry the commission, the board and the takers. One would not argue with such a cry, unless one remembers that the leakage was so pervasive that it is almost impossible to objectively distinguish the innocent from the guilty.
Besides, 90 out of 100 questions for Test 5 were leaked, reducing its weight from 20 percent to 10 (even granting they passed the module with flying colors), sending their grades down, bringing down their bar of competence and consigning them to the depths of mediocrity.
Worse, the PRC and the BON, in a sweeping, dubious and illogical move, employed a statistical mumbo-jumbo that effectively punished the innocent along with the guilty.
We talk of fairness, justice and the rights of the nurses. Fine. We should also continue to protect and uphold the privileges of our nurses.
The rights of the patients
That’s one side of the story. The other side is the right and responsibility of the hospitals to employ competent, trustworthy nurses who can take care of the old, the young and the sick. And what about the rights of the patients? Who cares about them?
The prerogatives of the patients make up the bigger part of the rights issue. In the end, nurses are sworn to serve the weak, the old and the sick. Serving the patients, to my mind, is the nurse’s raison d’être. Without the patient, there would be no need for a nurse.
That being the case, the interest of the nurse is conflated with the interest of the patient. The patient’s well-being is supreme and takes precedence over the rights of the nurse.
The issue, therefore, is not whether the nurse passed the board exam or not. It has more to do with the competence of the nurse and the patient’s trust and confidence in the nurse; there is no other issue.
I hope I have illuminated your minds with my oft-repeated line on the issue of the June 2006 nursing board. But more than that, I also want to talk to you about the relevance of the anomaly to our search for excellence and success, professional and personal. Surely, there must be lessons learned from it all.
I want to talk to you about values, and how they help shape our destiny as a people. Values mold character, that one rare commodity that separates the successful from the mediocre; the serene from the miserable; man from beast.
But first, allow me to take my hat off to the nurses and other health-care professionals. You are a class all your own. A cut above the rest. I salute you all.
A nurse belongs to a rare breed. Like the religious, nursing is not just a profession; it is a vocation. To be a nurse is to dedicate oneself to the service of the poor, the old, the sick and the dying.
To be a nurse is to think beyond oneself; to think beyond the borders of worldly possessions, beyond rewards. Your reward, as the saying goes, is your service to the sick, the family of the patient and to the community.
The nurse is the epitome of humility, dedication, selflessness, care and compassion.
We should thank the world for the nurses. Thank you, Ms. Or Mrs. Nurse.
But I came here to talk to you about values, about honor, about character.
Look around us. Observe. Have you ever wondered why despite the technological advances at our disposal today and the comfort they offer, many of us remain dissatisfied, unhappy and aimless?
Have you ever wondered what the world has finally become despite our acquisitive technology and the collective wisdom of man? The world has remained a place where the reason of force prevails over the force of reason.
Have you ever wondered why, despite the abundance of wisdom and wealth of experience, man remains essentially the beast he once was, devouring the weak, the innocent, the vulnerable?
Which brings me to my next question: If you were to make a choice, what would it be: Character or success? Wealth or family? Take your pick.
SENT VIA EMAIL
(Speech delivered by Dr. Dante Ang before UST students)
Manila Times
First of three parts
I trust that by now, most of the students at the University of Sto. Tomas must be familiar with the raging controversy that enveloped the recently concluded nursing board examination and its attendant issues.
Briefly, cheating did indeed occur in Tests 3 and 5 of the exam.
The leaked manuscripts came from two members of the Board of Nursing. One blamed poor health; the other, outright ignorance.
The manuscripts eventually found their way to the Gapuz, Inress and Pentagon review centers.
In Baguio City all available photocopy shops were contracted and reams upon reams of leaked questions were photocopied and ultimately distributed to the examinees. For a fee, I suppose.
In Manila the Inress review center had its “final coaching” held at the SM Megamall, attended by some 22 deans of nursing colleges, whose identities remain unknown at this writing. A number of reviewers also attended the coaching session.
Despite the admission of leakages, the Philippine Regulatory Commission (PRC), the Board of Nursing (BON) and some “successful” examinees refused to admit that the June 2006 Board exam has become unreliable and that it has subsequently tainted all participants, including the honest ones.
The PRC and BON insist that they have cleansed the examination of the virus and, therefore, its integrity remains intact. Some of those who passed the test agree with this assessment and are saying that they should be allowed to take their oath and their license issued in the interest of fairness.
“Punish the guilty and spare the innocent. No retake,” so goes the “cry for justice” of the board and the commission.
But in asking for a retake, are we sparing the guilty and punishing the innocent?
Consider this. Didn’t the PRC and BON punish the innocent when the test grades and assigned weights were recomputed, thus effectively lowering the passing average and eroding the level of competence of those who passed the nursing board?
Didn’t the PRC and BON punish the innocent when, in their haste to prevent the cheaters from benefiting from the leak, they invalidated 20 questions for Test 3 and reduced the percent weight for Test 5 from 20 to 10, thereby lowering the passing average and consigning those who must have excelled in the exam to the level of mediocrity?
Didn’t the PRC and BON punish the innocent when in their scramble to cover their incompetence, they gave a 2-percent bonus to the examinees, allowing 1,600 flunkers to pass, throwing the unqualified in the ranks of the competent ones?
Didn’t the PRC and BON punish the innocent and damage the interests of the honest nurses by lumping the cheats and the innocent together, tainting the integrity of professional nurses and jeopardizing their employability here and abroad?
Forked tongue
To confuse the public and obviate the relevant issues, the PRC and BON resorted to employing an American and a Filipina partner who tried to mislead our nurses by announcing publicly that “the 17,000 and 1,000 nurses are hired provided they pass NCLEX.” As the Indian would say in a Western movie: “Pale face speaks with forked tongue.”
In the first place, the two are outright recruiters. They have no power to hire nurses for employment to the United States. Note their qualifier: “After passing the NCLEX and interview with the American hospital.”
And there lies the problem. In the first place, I am not very optimistic that the incompetents will pass the NCLEX. And even if they did, I doubt if they could hurdle the personal interview where core competence, attitude, work ethic and values are the main focus of the one-on-one meeting.
All right, I’ll grant that even the incompetents can make it to the United States. Good luck. After all, the PRC and BON say that there are other modes of determining the core competency of the nurses, like school records and clinical experience.
(To be continued)
By all means, fall in love but not with yourself part II
Manila Times
(Dr. Dante A. Ang’s speech before University of Santo Tomas students)
Second of three parts
All right, I’ll grant that even the incompetents can make it to the United States. Good luck. After all, the PRC and BON say that there are other modes of determining the core competency of the nurses, like school records and clinical experience.
That being the case, perhaps we should abolish the PRC. Following its logic, the commission has become superfluous, an unnecessary bureaucratic layer and an added burden to our professionals. May I remind the PRC that, like the Central Bank, it is the repository of public trust, of confidence, of integrity. It sets the national standard of excellence for our board exams.
Instead of correcting their mistakes, what did the PRC and BON do? They tried to inveigle the nurses into believing that, contrary to the general notion, the nurses are not suffering from any form of stigma and that jobs await them here and in countries abroad.
To prove that point, the PRC presented an American recruiter and a Filipina partner who said that they are hiring the June 2006 batch, all 17,000 of them. Yet in the same breath, the recruiter said, provided our nurses pass the NCLEX and the personal interview. This is B.S.
Did you know that recruiters are paid by the American hospitals $100 for each referral and from $7,000 to $10,000 for each nurse recruited? You may want to ask: how many of our nurses have signed up with this American recruiter and his partner?
Oh yes, this American and his partner would want us to believe that their hearts are bleeding for the Filipino nurses, except that they are crying all the way to the bank.
I wonder if they have secured a written approval from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration to advertise their job vacancies. Maybe they did. But to announce on television that 17,000 or even 1,000 are hired even before these nurses could fill out an application form, their act must be more than a violation of the POEA rules; it is an outright lie!
I’d say, throw these “vultures” out of the country for living off the misery of our nurses and for engaging in double talk, invariably raising false hopes among the nurses. If that’s not a crime, what is?
I can go on and on with the list of how the PRC and BON have inflicted harm, how they have tarred the integrity and image of our honest and competent nurses. But let us set that aside momentarily and talk briefly about the June 2006 batch whose interests, according to the PRC, BON and some successful examinees, will be prejudiced if they retake Tests 3 and 5.
“No retake. Punish the guilty. Spare the innocent,” cry the commission, the board and the takers. One would not argue with such a cry, unless one remembers that the leakage was so pervasive that it is almost impossible to objectively distinguish the innocent from the guilty.
Besides, 90 out of 100 questions for Test 5 were leaked, reducing its weight from 20 percent to 10 (even granting they passed the module with flying colors), sending their grades down, bringing down their bar of competence and consigning them to the depths of mediocrity.
Worse, the PRC and the BON, in a sweeping, dubious and illogical move, employed a statistical mumbo-jumbo that effectively punished the innocent along with the guilty.
We talk of fairness, justice and the rights of the nurses. Fine. We should also continue to protect and uphold the privileges of our nurses.
The rights of the patients
That’s one side of the story. The other side is the right and responsibility of the hospitals to employ competent, trustworthy nurses who can take care of the old, the young and the sick. And what about the rights of the patients? Who cares about them?
The prerogatives of the patients make up the bigger part of the rights issue. In the end, nurses are sworn to serve the weak, the old and the sick. Serving the patients, to my mind, is the nurse’s raison d’être. Without the patient, there would be no need for a nurse.
That being the case, the interest of the nurse is conflated with the interest of the patient. The patient’s well-being is supreme and takes precedence over the rights of the nurse.
The issue, therefore, is not whether the nurse passed the board exam or not. It has more to do with the competence of the nurse and the patient’s trust and confidence in the nurse; there is no other issue.
I hope I have illuminated your minds with my oft-repeated line on the issue of the June 2006 nursing board. But more than that, I also want to talk to you about the relevance of the anomaly to our search for excellence and success, professional and personal. Surely, there must be lessons learned from it all.
I want to talk to you about values, and how they help shape our destiny as a people. Values mold character, that one rare commodity that separates the successful from the mediocre; the serene from the miserable; man from beast.
But first, allow me to take my hat off to the nurses and other health-care professionals. You are a class all your own. A cut above the rest. I salute you all.
A nurse belongs to a rare breed. Like the religious, nursing is not just a profession; it is a vocation. To be a nurse is to dedicate oneself to the service of the poor, the old, the sick and the dying.
To be a nurse is to think beyond oneself; to think beyond the borders of worldly possessions, beyond rewards. Your reward, as the saying goes, is your service to the sick, the family of the patient and to the community.
The nurse is the epitome of humility, dedication, selflessness, care and compassion.
We should thank the world for the nurses. Thank you, Ms. Or Mrs. Nurse.
But I came here to talk to you about values, about honor, about character.
Look around us. Observe. Have you ever wondered why despite the technological advances at our disposal today and the comfort they offer, many of us remain dissatisfied, unhappy and aimless?
Have you ever wondered what the world has finally become despite our acquisitive technology and the collective wisdom of man? The world has remained a place where the reason of force prevails over the force of reason.
Have you ever wondered why, despite the abundance of wisdom and wealth of experience, man remains essentially the beast he once was, devouring the weak, the innocent, the vulnerable?
Which brings me to my next question: If you were to make a choice, what would it be: Character or success? Wealth or family? Take your pick.
SENT VIA EMAIL
IPIS HIRIT KA NA NAMAN EH ...TIGIL MO NA YAN..SPRAY NA KITA BAYGON SIGE KA!!!!!
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:31 PM
Sarap mong paluin ng bar of excellence
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:24 PM
PWE!BASURA UNG SPEECH NI DANTE ANG.SIGURO MAS NATUWA P AKO KUNG NAG-SPEECH SYA S KLOWNZ NI ALLAN K.HAHAHAHA...
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:31 AM
well said, bravo!!! It is 100 % true and very mind opener and thought provoking speech. Keep it up and spread the reality of it all and not the illusions of those whose never been here in the States.Applause ...applause Dante Ang!!!!
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:57 AM
Dr. DANTE ANG:
Please do not talk about values to us because you are insulting our intelligence.
Look at yourself first. What are you--are you not a SYCHOPHANT, and a PROFITEER in the process, who is serving a PRESIDENT whose legitimacy is under cloud of DOUBT--much more than that of the 2006 passers--simply because that doubt cannot be removed because she is hiding under the benefit of the doubt under the law, which benefit you are depriving 2006 passers?
She already admitted her fault over TV, but because of legal technicality, Mr. Garcillano's tape could not be used as evidence, hence she is able to deceive Filipinos and get away with it. When two impeachment cases were filed, there was no proof that the cases were not valid. In fact the charges were not even made known to the public because suppressed by congressmen--as honorable as you? However, because it was a game of numbers--NOT OF VALUES--in the House, the impeachment cases were thrown out. (You should preach VALUES to our congressmen, not to us.) But, let's face it, the DOUBT on the President's legitimacy persists to this day.
There are millions who want to resolve the DOUBT in the legitimacy of the President. As you impliedly think of yourself as honorable--otherwise how dare you teach values to us--I suppose you also want to erase that DOUBT through REELECTION or RESIGNATION by the President--simultaneous with your call for retake of 2006 nursing exam passers!
Unless you speak out against removing the DOUBT in the President's legitimacy, we will take it--and we want Malacanang people to know--that, pursuant to your inculcation of values to us--YOU WANT THE PRESIDENT TO DECLARE SNAP ELECTION OR RESIGN TO ERASE ONCE AND FOR ALL THE DOUBT HANGING OVER HER LEGITIMACY AS PRESIDENT, AND THEREBY HEAL THE NATION THROUGH RESOLVING THE MOST BASIC ISSUE THAT DIVIDES IT!!!
DR. DANTE ANG, WE WILL BELIEVE YOUR ISSUE ON RETAKE--AND THAT YOU ARE NOT A HYPOCRITE--IF YOU WILL ACCOMPANY IT WITH YOUR CALL FOR REELECTION OR RESIGNATION OF OUR PRESIDENT!!!
Unless we hear otherwise from you within ten days, we will take it, and we will let Malacanang know, that YOU ARE CALLING FOR REELECTION OR RESIGNATION OF THE PRESIDENT, simultaneous with your call for nursing exam retake!!!
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:47 AM
Today, is September 10, 2006. Let those who want RETAKE, together with Mr. Dante Ang, accompany their call for retake with their call for REELECTION or RESIGNATION of the President, otherwise they will appear as HYPOCRITES discriminating against 2006 passers!
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:55 AM
aw
aw
aw
aw
aw
aw
aw
aw
aw
aw
aw
aw
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:02 AM
This speech would have been good if it did not come from a corrupt politician like Dante Ang. He is one of those vultures devouring the weak. What a hypocrite!! He is only after 2 things: media mileage out of an exam mess and financial gain for getting an NCLEX site.
Posted by
Anonymous |
10:32 AM
ooppss.. i thought, the final coaching was held in SM Manila? hhmmm.. aLamin mo muna Dante Ang, ang mga facts regarding the issue before making such speech.. ilang months na issue 'to eh and yet, mali-mali pa din.. haaay.. nakikisawsaw k lng tlga..
poor.. Dante Ang.. nakakaawa ka.. pra lng my msbe, kht anu na lng.. tsk.. tsk..
Posted by
Anonymous |
10:47 AM
lam nyo.. takot lang kayo mgretake.. ksi nakinabang din kayo.. aminin nyo.. sino ba namang uulit ng exam na sure pass na diba??? we have all the ryts to have our opinion.. Dante Ang's opinion was based on facts. if you dont agree to his opinion, wag ka ng magsalita ng basura.. pinapakita mo lang di ka sibilisadong tao..
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:42 AM
ey, kayo na nagsasabi na if ur good in sumthing, may rights ka magcomment.. tandaan nyo si dante ang ang head ng naglalakad ng nclex. wag kayo magmarunong. wala pa naman kayo naaachieve! pagnagwork na kayo sa states yan pwede na kayo humirit. si dante ang ang nakakaalam kung ano ang pasikotsikot sa trabaho ng recruiters. kawawa nalman kayo mga pumasa, nagpapagamit sa prc sa bon at sa mga recruiter.. sino ngayon ang nasa lossing end? parang kayo pa mga pumasa.
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:12 PM
10:32 poster, mas gusto ko na corrupt sya pero and2 ang nclex, kaysa pumunta ka pa sa ibang bansa at dun magtake. and btw, he is doing this for ur family. yung sinasabi mong family mo
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:19 PM
Bago ang lahat Mr. Dante Ang "Gulo-"Gulo" mo. Pwede bang pautangin mo kami ng kwartas mo kasi marami ka namang pera kaya inaabala mo kaming mga bagong nurse na makapagtrabaho. Wala kang pakiaalam kung magutom kami basta ang importante sa iyo ay mapagbigyan mo ang iyong "Guni-Guni" tungkol sa sinasabi mong Stigma at kung ano anong che-che-buretse!!!!
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:50 PM
Marami sa aming mga taga-bundok ang nangigigil na sa iyo Mr. Ang. Parang mas gusto mo pang manatili kami sa bundok at lumaban sa gobyerno. Anak na lang namin na nakapasa ang pag-asa namin makababa sa bundok pero pinahihirapan mo pa kami!!!!!
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:01 PM
Di ko kailangang mag-retake dahil matagal na akong pasado at I already have what I need.
Yung passers ay ayaw ng retake dahil pinaghirapan nila ito. Di ito pakinabang sa leakage dahil inalis na nga ang effect ng leakage. Si Dante Ang mismo, sa first part ng speech niya, ang uma-angal dahil sa nangyari. May papasa sana na mataas ang grade sa Test 5, pero bumagsak dahil nga sa downgraded ito para maalis ang effect ng leakage. Ang resulta, nabawasan ang passers dahil yung magaling lang sa Test 5 ay bagsak at ang pumasa ay iyong mga magaling hindi lang sa Test 5 kundi pati sa Tests 1 to 4.
Ibig sabihin, hindi incompetent kundi mas pili pa nga, mas competent lamang, ang pumasa. SELECT BREED OF PASSERS, wika nga!!!
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:04 PM
Kung kay Dante Ang aasa ang mga Pilipino para magka-NCLEX dito, huwag na kayong umasa, walang mangyayari. Dahil malaking kahihiyan niya ito. Dahil sa 2006 PRC exam, ng maging 390 ang effective valid questions at hindi na 500 after removing the effect of leakage, nagnga-ngawa na siya na incompetent daw ang passers, na dangerous daw sa patients.
Sa NCLEX pala, na final test ng mga foreign nurses na gustong mag-serve sa almost 300 million Americans and other foreign patients, ay 75 hanggang 265 lamang ang questions. Eh di parang sinampal siya pag nilakad niyang gawin iyan dito, dahil iyan ang supalpal sa pinagpipilitan niyang 500 questions na dapat masagot lahat ng 2006 passers, kaya gusto niya ng retake!
Kaya para matuloy dito ang NCLEX, dapat huwag siyang isali sa paglakad at baka SABOTAHE lang ang mangyari.
One more thing: passer ba siya ng kahit anong board exam? Kung hindi, he does not even know what he is talking about, at kahit doctor pa siya (ng kabayo? Sorry, kabayo, hindi kita ini-insulto!), ang mga professionals na passers ng licensure and bar exams are a breed apart from him!!! He does not belong to their exclusive group called professionals--whose practice of profession is regulated by the government.
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:28 PM
it's affecting us ... we're starting hearing negative comments and distrust from our co-worker and patients here.
~ a Nurse working in Southern California ~
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:28 PM
1:28 [poster} hinde sya nagtake ng licensure exam, pero sya yung head lang naman ng nclex. so alam nya about nurses.. and btw, kaw ba? ano ba narating mo? head ka ba ng agency na gusto d2 ang nclex? be fair.. ndi nga sya nurse.. pero sya yung naghuhundle sa mga nurses na umaalis d2 sa bansa...
and dun naman sa nagsabi na competent ang mga bumagsak? hehehe. may kilala ako ndi magaling sa revalida. may deficiency pa nga sya eh. pero pumasa sa board.. luck lang tlga sa board exam.. pero ngayon,, badluck yata ang nakuha nila kasi, pumasa sila may issue.
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:43 PM
Tama na! kung ano maging desisyon sa court of appeals yun na yun, siguro naman ang judgement ay magiging fair para sa lahat, ang walang kasalanan di dapat magdusa,ang may kasalanan dapat panagutin yun ang justice. Kung walang ebidensya wag magbintang, kung kilala niyo nandaya at may ebidensya kayo dapat ilabas niyo na ng matapos na hindi yung puro ngawa at recommendasyon. Di maitatama ang isang bagay kung ang solusyon ay kamalian.Nagsampa na ang mga nagrereklamo sa korte pero ngawa pa ng ngawa let your appeals be settled in court.Mr.Ang has his rights for his opinion but it doesnt mean that we are required to agree on his opinion.
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:35 PM
Kaya kailangan ni Dante Ang ang passing ng licensure exam, so that he will know how it was during college, during review, during pre-exam coaching, and during exam. Dapat malaman niya na sa review, daming questions na binibigay, merong lilitaw sa exam, merong hindi. Dapat alam nya na ang examinees ay gumastos sa review, at binibigyan ng questions, at wala siyang control kung ano ang ibinibigay--kung leakage o hindi. Dapat alam nya kung may lumitaw man na bigay sa review, hindi ito kasalanan ng examinees. At dapat alam nya na kahit may leakage incident ng 2006, hindi dapat alisin ang review centers dahil kailangan ang mga ito, and what is needed is proper regulation.
Sorry, pero kahit head siya ng NCLEX, he may just be a pretender and glamorized recruiter! He will not really know how it is to be an examinee and a nurse.
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:39 PM
bat ba msyao affected si ANG? errrrrrrrrr
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:16 PM
Head si Dante Ang ng NCLEX task force or whatever, eh ano, that does not give him the competence to judge the 2006 passers. Ang kailangan niya na wala sa kanya kung hindi siya nag-take ng licensure exam, knowledge as to how it is to study, to review in review centers, and to take the board exam. Ang magsasabi lang na di niya kailangan ito ay yung hindi rin nag board exam na tulad niya.
Nakita niya, doubt sa competence ng 2006 passers, bakit di niya makita, DOUBT SA LEGITIMACY NG BOSS NIYA? Nakita niya, kailangan ng retake, bakit di niya makita, kailangan ang REELECTION o RESIGNATION?
Proof ng KATANGAHAN niya, sabi niya sa article niya nung Sept. 5, 2006 sa Manila Times, sabi sa Nursing Act of 2001 (kaya di ko nakita kaagad, yun pala 2002), the law is clear, 75% ang passing grade.
Di pala niya alam kung paano ang paggawa ng batas. Hindi ito detalyado dahil pag may lumitaw na problema, mahirap i-handle, kailangan ang panibagong batas. So the law gives leeway to its implementor. Kaya yung Nursing Act of 2002, kahit sinabing 75 percent ang passing grade, hindi nito itinali ang PRC at Board of Nursing sa kung ano ang exact subjects, exact number of questions, at exact weights ng bawat subject sa computation ng grades. Binigyan ng batas ng broad powers ang Board of Nursing to determine the exam subjects, etc. pero di nito sinabi kung ano ang exact list of SUBJECTS na siyang topics ng board exam (dahil baka balang araw may kailangang idagdag na subject), kung ilan ang exam QUESTIONS (dahil baka balang araw kailangang baguhin, halimbawa dahil nagdagdag ng subject, o kaya ay napakahirap ng ilang tanong at doble ang weight kumpara sa ibang tanong), at kung ano ang comparative WEIGHTS ng mga subjects (may subject na mas mahirap kaysa iba kaya mas mataas ang weight).
KAHIT MAGTANONG SIYA SA MGA LAWMAKERS, GANYAN ANG PAGGAWA NG BATAS, IN GENERAL TERMS ANG WORDINGS, BAHALA NA ANG IMPLEMENTING RULES SA DETALYE, TULAD NG IMPLEMENTING RULES SA R.A. 1594 ON INFRASTRUCTURE, OR BIR REGULATIONS ISSUED TO IMPLEMENT NEW TAX LAWS. Pero di niya isinama sa speech niya sa UST yung illegal rationalization of grades, siguro natauhan na siya o may nagsabi sa kanya na may nag-comment na mali siya dito--kaya nga lang he has already exposed and published his IGNORANCE in the Manila Times! Pero ang error niya ay hindi lamang diyan, tingnan nyo na lang ang comments sa Korte. Una una sub judice na, bakit pa siya nagpublished ng article sa dati niyang diyaryo? Ako, sinasagot ko lang yung sinabi niya dahil baka patuloy niyang malason ang isipan ng bayan at maniwala sa kanya!
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:09 PM
Here is another glaring ERROR of Dr. Dante Ang, and complaining deans for that matter, who want a retake of Test 3:
To them, the remaining 80 questions in Test 3 after exclusion of 20 leaked questions are not enough to determine the required competence of successful examinees on this subject. But how can that be when NCLEX itself--the NURSING BOARD EXAM FOR ALL FOREIGN NURSES ALL OVER THE WORLD WHO WILL SERVE ROUGHLY 300 MILLION HIGH-PAYING AMERICAN AND FOREIGN PATIENTS IN THE US, has first 75 questions that if hurdled will automatically declare the examinee as PASSED. This total number of questions for the entire exam of varied subjects is even LESS than the 80 questions for just one subject in Test 3. While our law does not ask us to follow NCLEX, it also does not prohibit us from doing so. And if a technical expert will say that the NCLEX exam system is sufficient--how can't it be, my gosh, when it serves even the best hospitals in the US where foreign doctors including Filipinos specialize, or where rich foreign patients including Filipinos go to for hospitalization?--then the 80 questions for Test 3 for one subject alone can be considered sufficient. HINDI KO MAINTINDIHAN KUNG BAKIT HINDI ITO MAKAPASOK SA KUKOTE NG MAY GUSTO NG RETAKE NG TEST 3.
Dr. Dante Ang, for example, could not see that implication. Like a spoiled brat na pag kinontra mo ayaw na, he said: then abolish PRC and avoid expenses.
What kind of a person with doctorate is he? Is his doctorate a real or fancy degree? It seems he cannot even think straight! He maybe occupying a very high position, he maybe very rich, he maybe very successful, he maybe very popular, he maybe very highly educated, he maybe very influential, but all of these things are a NON SEQUITUR. It does not follow that these things make him qualified to pass judgment on the nursing scandal. What is needed there is what corporate recruiters call RELEVANT TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE--and he does not have the wisdom from such relevant training and experience if he did not pass a board exam! How can he judge the actuation of board examinees if he did not undergo their ordeal? When the Supreme Court Justices deliberated on the 2003 bar exam scandal, they understood perfectly well the situation of examinees, they were once bar examinees themselves, so they were able to resolve the problem without the mess and recriminations that have attended the present nursing scandal.
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:17 AM
Another proof of Dr. Dante Ang's seeming convoluted logic?
Sabi niya sa first part ng kanyang article:
""Punish the guilty and spare the innocent. No retake," so goes the "cry for justice" of the board and the commission."
Then he asked:
"But in asking for a retake, are we sparing the guilty and PUNISHING THE INNOCENT?"
Ibig niyang sabihin, they are not sparing the guilty and THEY ARE NOT PUNISHING THE INNOCENT. What does he mean?
Sa NO RETAKE, this is what will happen:
First, out of 25,000 non-passers, those whose grades were high in Test 5 but were low in other subjects could not be saved by their downgraded Test 5 (downgraded owing to elimination of effect of leakage), so they failed and will have to RETAKE.
Second, the rest of the 25,000 non-passers will of course also RETAKE.
Third: however, the 17,000 passers, those with high grades in more subjects, not just in Test 5, will pass as the select breed of passers in the 2006 exam, made more stringent by the elimination of leakage that resulted in higher mortality--they will NOT RETAKE.
On the other hand, sa recommended RETAKE ni Dr. Dante Ang, will the innocent be spared--ang innocent ba ay walang punishment--as he implied? Let us see. This is what will happen under his RETAKE scheme:
First, those whom he himself described as INNOCENT, the same innocent examinees with high grade in downgraded Test 5 but not high enough in other subjects will--what else if not also RETAKE! He, he, he!!!
Second, the rest of 25,000 non-passers will obviously RETAKE;
Third, and worst of all, the 17,000 passers--who should be given the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT accorded by our justice system to suspected murderers and rapists, plunderers of the nation, election cheaters, and other heinous criminals, to the extent of ABOLISHING DEATH PENALTY pursuant to this democratic principle--will be deemed not entitled to it and hence will be deprived of that benefit, and will therefore likewise RETAKE!!!
In which case, nasaan yung NO PUNISHMENT TO THE INNOCENT na sinasabi ni Dr. Ang? Sa recommendation niya, the entire 42,000 examinees will RETAKE, with not one single innocent examinee spared from it!!!
A very clear example of this travesty of justice are the nursing exam passers in Mindanao, as pointed out in the column of Mr. Antonio Montalvan II (Phil. Daily Inquirer, 9-11-06, page A15.) They cannot understand why they in Mindanao, very clearly not involved in leakage in Luzon, could not be cleared of the leakage and spared from RETAKE.
Dr. Dante Ang, will you please enlighten them how your RETAKE proposal will spare them innocent passers in Mindanao? I am just an ordinary mortal, I have no doctorate like you, and though I studied for sometime in one of the country's exclusive schools and in two universities in the United States, I still could not fathom your brilliant idea of SPARING THE INNOCENT through asking all of examinees, passers and non-passers alike, to RETAKE.
Maybe you mean to free the passers from the STIGMA of incompetence and dishonor through a retake? But this is just another BIG HOAX that you are foisting to the nation!!! Why that is so, I will leave it to you and to complaining nursing deans to figure out. This will just be ventilated in the proper judicial forum.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:59 AM
Dante Ang,
Inilalampaso ka na ng mga tao dito because you dont have an inch of knowledge on what you are saying. You are contradicting your own arguments and you cannot even say EXACTLY the things that you wanted to say."BY ALL MEANS....just please shut your mouth!"
Posted by
Anonymous |
3:54 PM
Dante Ang....I salute you... You're the world's FUNNIEST person alive! Pwede ka sa palabas ni Michael V....ung BITOY'S FUNNIEST! Hehehehe (Winner ka dun!)
Pwede rin naman sa isang Comedy BAR....Hihihihi!!!
Posted by
Anonymous |
3:58 PM
With all due respect to Dr. Dante Ang, I have been really wondering now: DID HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS SAYING AND DOING IN THE NURSING EXAM SCANDAL?
I realized belatedly from SOMEBODY'S COMMENTS HERE that he is somehow involved in NCLEX. Is he leading the government's effort to include the Philippines as NCLEX exam venue?
If so, then his effort of convincing NCLEX administrators to hold NCLEX exams here means he is accepting the validity of NCLEX as an examination system. It means he is accepting the number of questions in NCLEX--first 75 questions and if hurdled by the examinee, he is declared PASSED; otherwise the checking will go up to the 265th and last question. It means that in the PRC exam, he should be amenable likewise to a lesser number of questions, such as 80 for ONE SUBJECT under Test 3 (exclusive of 20 excluded leaked questions) which is, after all, more than the first 75 questions for ALL SUBJECTS in NCLEX!
So,isn't Dr. Dante Ang merely making a fool of himself in the 2006 nursing scandal? He is barred or ESTOPPED from criticizing the reduced number of 2006 exam questions as he has already admitted through his endorsement of NCLEX in the Philippines the validity of NCLEX with much lesser number of test questions!!!
I suggest he talk to a lawyer first before he further make himself a laughing stock in the nursing and legal world. First and foremost that he should ask his lawyer: What is his right to overturn the presumption of innocence and competence--OR BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT--of 2006 passers against whom neither he nor the NBI could present solid evidence of cheating--those who are expected to pass with or without leakage, such as the graduates of UP, UE, UST, etc. as well as those who took the exam in venues that are clearly not attended to by cheating, like the passers in Mindanao. His sweeping conclusion of zero passer as implied in his recommended retake is contradicted even by some US hospitals. In the past when there was no acute shortage yet of nurses in the US and pre-employment tests were administered to applicants, they eventually did not ask UP graduates to take the test because from their earlier experience, UP GRADUATES ALWAYS PASSED THEIR TESTS! (A SALUTE to the 2006 UP passers who, sad to say, are put down even by their own DEAN!) So how dare Dr. Ang look down upon UP graduates as incompetent and dishonorable as inferred from his recommended retake without exception? He is simply WRONG on them--and even on many others for that matter--that is the long and short of it, and, apparently, HE IS DOING A DISSERVICE, NOT SERVICE, TO THE NATION, especially to the hapless poor and struggling parents of many 2006 passers!!!
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:55 PM
i suggest sa mga pumasa, tumahimik muna kayo. after ng gulo, tsaka kayo magsalita. wala pa kayong naproprove eh.
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:34 PM
I am not a new passer, and I am made, financially and professionally.
I cannot keep quiet on the seeming STUPIDITY of Dr. Dante Ang because he is harming many Filipinos--and that statement is supported by prior comments herein, not a gratuitous one. Let him, or his technical experts, or the complaining deans, refute the comments against them herein--if they can.
But I have already assessed Dr. Dante Ang's points in his article--and these are not airtight. I doubt if he can refute on a point by point basis the comments against him here. It seems he cannot even make logical cause and effect analysis on the issue because it is not his line of expertise. He may be good but on other things. Let him disprove the comments against him here. Let him post his counter comments here, so we can see what he can do.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:28 PM
BY ALL MEANS (to use Dr. Dante Ang's own words), let him issue a REJOINDER to the herein REPLIES to his posted ARTICLE--if he can.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:10 AM
The judge has to be better than the one being judged.
Kung hindi naranasan ni Dante Ang ang kumuha ng licensure exam, paano niya malalaman kung ano talaga ang nangyayari dito, lalo na sa punto de vista ng mga examinees? The examinees are being judged by him who, in the first place, never took a board exam, let alone the nursing board. He is definitely at a level below the examinees as far as nursing and nursing board exams are concerned.
This is unfair because the examinees should be judged by at least their equal, not one who is an ignoramus on what nurses know. Their equal is one who at the very least has taken a licensure exam, even if not nursing, because that process is an education in itself that the examinees who became professionals will remember for the rest of their lives.
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:25 AM
8:34PM POSTER (the one 4 posts above this post):
Would you please re-direct your comment to Mr Ang who does not seem to know from where he's coming from?
Why try to silence the legitimate and valid points posted by the passers?
Please advise Mr Ang instead to keep quiet instead of blabbering like a spoiled child.
Mr Ang should be the first one to know na even before the June 2006 Board exam took place, hindi na lumusot yung issue of the NCLEX being held here. So huwag sanang gamitin ni Mr Ang na dahilan ang hindi pag-approve sa holding of the NCLEX dito to the leakage issue(which happened much, much later!).
Don't be a hypocritic liar who speaks with a forked tongue, Mr ANG!
Posted by
Anonymous |
4:20 PM
What's your comment to the above, balut?
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:33 PM
bravo!!! thats right, Mr. Ang shut up! hwag mo nang pakialaman ang NCLEX..sa local board nga mali-mali info mo yun pa kaya ang NCLEX.. hwag mo nang pahabain pa ang problema, tumahimik ka nalang.. bakit magkano ba ang gusto mo? name your price!!!Bwahahaha.....frum ok ba?
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:49 PM
Tama yon, balut! hehe!
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:55 PM
Uwi ka na, balut!
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:58 PM
Mr. Ang talking about values?
mr. Ang humarap ka muna sa salamin before ka magdeliver ng speech about values.
Nclex was disapproved way before the leakage controversy. nakahanap ka lang ng pagkakataon para isisi sa iba ang mga kakulangan mo sa trabaho mo.
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:48 PM
If it is true as reported by media that the Presidential Task Force headed by Dante Ang is among the complainants before the Court of Appeals on the nursing scandal, then he does not even know how to perform his role as a government official in the Executive Branch.
As part of the Executive Branch, he should work for the settlement of the nursing scandal within the Branch. He should not depend on the Courts to tell them what is right. The government officials within the Executive Branch--the Office of the President, PRC, BON, Presidential Task Force, DOJ, etc. should deliberate on the matter. Dante Ang, in effect, should convince this group, including the President of the Philippines, on what is the proper thing to do. If he is right, then there is no reason why he cannot convince the group and have his way. In this manner, the matter would not even reach the Courts. The Courts would be involved only if outside parties will complain, not Dante Ang.
Because Dante Ang does not know how to work within the bureacracy, the entire nation saw how he was rebuffed by President Arroyo who decided against retake. Today, Sept. 12, 2006, it is the government's Solicitor General who rebuffed him through his petition before the Court of Appeals to lift the TRO against oath-taking.
People like him should not be in government because he merely adds to the disenchanment of the people against the government. He is a liability to the Arroyo Administration--it looks he could not even do what he should do in the first place: work for the welfare of OFW's--some of whom lamented in TV during the Lebanon evacuation that they were not paid their salaries even before the war erupted. These cases of non-payment or underpayment of salaries have been going on even in the 1990's, and what has Dante Ang done about them? He may not even be aware of them because it seems he does not take steps to determine and solve the pestering problems of OFW's, like long work hours, no free time, physical abuse, rape, etc. He should give priority to these problems because even his entire energy may not even measure up to what is needed to solve them.
Posted by
Anonymous |
10:19 PM
Ito lang ANG masasabi ko...Mas magandang hulihin si Dante Ang at dalhin sa Luneta sa itaas ng plaza at hubaran ng salawal at patalikurin, tapos tiradorin ang bayag at itlog para makita niya ang galit ng taong bayan sa kanya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:01 AM
you people are so deluded with your false rationalizations and useless logic. if it werent for dante ang, the ncsbn wouldnt have been affirmative on making the philippines an official nclex testing site.
and besides "tamaan na ang dapat tamaan," those who have been offended by that speech surely lacked the necessary values to comprehend that good results come from great sacrifices. and for all you know those (operators of) review centers are so guilty of their acts, and look at them,reigning the streets looking like guiltless animals.
my salute to mr dante ang for his dedication to the integrity of the nursing profession.
to the nurses who care for the nsg profession:
“Be daring, be different, be impractical, be anything that will assert integrity of purpose and imaginative vision against the play-it-safers, the creatures of the commonplace, the slaves of the ordinary.”
and to those who do not:
No dan una persona integridad. Resulta de la búsqueda implacable de la honradez siempre.
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:45 PM