Good one!

[knok]

Please read:

fiction. there is no shortage - Reader comments at The New York Sun

New York Sun

[djdevil]

Yeap, I totally agree with that.

-

[fpgeetaker]

Hi Knok,
Thanks for the article. I hope this disaster will be terminated soon.

[pharmacist14]

nice article...Thanks for your post knok.
Hope we get solution of our problem of toefl-ibt soon.

[knok]

Thanks the author of this article. It hits the points. I wish that NABP or State Board of Pharmacy could see this document.

I invite all spouses to step up to solve this dilemma. You will help to solve pharmacist shortage while NABP has spent several months to find other tests to replace the TOEFL iBT. NABP realized that TOEFL iBT has problems since the computer based but because it is bureaucratic. It means that working slowly to change anything.

NABP responded to public that states react to pharmacist shortage by using technicians and technology. When technicians do most of the work and something bad happens, who takes responsibility? Us, pharmacists…Please ask yourself. What do you do for your profession, besides helping patients? What have you done for your profession? Do you agree that your performance should be measured by speed instead of quality of giving consultation?

Please post links and/or addresses to media, news, TV, newspapers, web sites that you know here. We will start sending our messages across the nation.

You will not believe that the person who has authority to issue the state license does not even know that TOEFL iBT is one of the requirements of FPGEC certificate. She/he thought that FPGEC certificate meant that you just passed FPGEE, then you would receive the FPGEC certificate. We need good communication. It is called " Utilize the managerial communication for improving healthcare operation and reducing bottle neck where it happens."

Thank you

[gideyam]

I found the article “fiction. There is no shortage” to be excellent and timley.

First, I would like to extend my appreciation to those individuals who are trying to address the pitfalls of the TOEFL-IBT test. Regardless of the outcome, I think it is very important to bring the issue into the picture. This has two advantages. One, I strongly believe that there are many good citizens who are working within the NAPB and state board of pharmacies but lack clear information regarding the issues and yet, could make unprejudiced and logical judgments based on the feedbacks that we are providing them. Second, we should not remain silent but fight against a system that lacks clarity and consistency.
I found the article “fiction. There is no shortage”to be excellent because it addresses the problems of many foreign graduate pharmacists who are victims of the TOEFL-Ibt. The article also complements my feelings that I had posted on the TestMagic webpage. To enrich this article and to help refresh our memory, I am posting them again with some minor tweaks. The first posting goes as follows.
TOEFL-ibt: Making Business or Measuring Language Proficiency,
“I found the TestMagic webpage to be a wonderful forum to share our views and experiences and a means to ventilate our feelings and pressures. I believe this writing may generate new discussions from different perspectives. I found the TOEF-IBT to be a hurdle. At times, I say to myself that TOEFL-IBt seems to be designed as a way to deny foreign graduate pharmacists practice pharmacy. At other times, I go out of my way to make a guess that ETS has turned itself to a pure business entity that generates income with a strategy of skim the cream. Of course, the NABP contributes a lot to make the business more lucrative by making its minimum requirements high, particularly the speaking, and looking for scores of each test separately, instead of looking for an aggregate figure. Having said these let me pinpoint some of my observations and feelings as to whether the new TOEFL-Ibt meets its objectives measuring the language proficiency of the test takers.
First, I wonder if ETS has minimum standards that a testing site needs to meet regarding separation among seats. My observation is that the test centers that I saw were very crowded and the separation between seats was very close. Under these conditions, how does the ETS assume that one could gather his/her attention and concentration without being diverted and distracted with the noises and traffics movements? Sometimes the sitting arrangement itself also matters. In one centre, I had a problem of focusing the computer screen due to a sun light reflection coming through the window. I think ETS does not need any party to witness such problems. If they are really genuine and concerned on measuring the test takers language proficiency, they can make their own inspections and make the environment conducive for such tests.
Second, as you all know the test is 4 hours duration with ten minutes break in between. This might not be everybody’s problem but I personally found it very difficult to stay energetic with all my concentration and power of thinking through out the test time. By the time I finish the reading and listening tests, I got exhausted and I could not gather my mind. I start thinking and rushing to finish the test, instead of staying tuned and focused. The bottom line is why ETS does not make the test flexible? I mean, why is not possible to break the test into two parts (part one reading and listening and the remaining as part two) and allow test takers take the test on different days? If this not possible, what is the problem if one wants, for instance, to start with the speaking test first and then goes to the other parts since helps do the speaking part while one is physiologically active and energetic.
Third, I do not see the logic behind why test takers are made to take the whole test again once they have passed, for example, the reading and listening part of the test, instead of taking the part (s) that they have failed to score the minimum point. It would reasonable to retake the whole test if the requirement is to score a combined figure of all test parts. When it comes to meeting the NABP requirement, for example, what they are looking is a minimum score of each test. Therefore, I do not see the reason why one should take the whole test again. If one sees this from the point of view of measuring one’s language proficiency, I do not see any valid reason. To me it seems as if the objective is to either measure test takers energy or ability to stay concentrated during long hour tests under pressure or make them fail the test by making them tired.
Finally, in some states, for example in Massachusetts, it is becoming harder and harder to get a site to take the test. One has to register as earlier as two or three months to take the test. So it is a must to travel to states like NY to take the test. To do this one has to be out of work for at least two days, which is neither economical nor convenient.
My second posting goes like this.
Why is the NABP making TOEFL-ibt as a rate-limiting factor?
“...I was trying to navigate some of the writings posted on TestMagic webpage. I found many ideas that draw my attention. For now let me add one piece of information to what has been said about the internship program. You are right that once the pharmacist has passed the FPGE, they have to pass through an internship program where he/she should work under the supervision of their preceptor who is a licensed pharmacist. I believe the preceptor evaluates the intern from different perception, not only his/her professional capacities but also other issues related the practice like her/his ability to communicate. That is not all. Before and after the internship program, the candidate has to pass through employers’ job interview. These people are smart who are more than anybody else concerned about the individual’s efficiency to communicate. They do not hire someone simply for the sake of hiring. They are there to generate profit by rendering service to the public. They are not there to a pay pension salary for someone who is inefficient to run their business. I believe, as citizens of the US, they share the concerns of NABP to protect the public’s safety. On top of this, they bear risk. So, I doubt very much if they could compromise public’s safety and quality of the service for a reason to benefit someone. Hence, they pay much attention and take maximum precaution before they decide to hire someone. They evaluate the potential employee from different angles. They go beyond evaluating one’s professional knowledge and ability to communicate. They use different techniques to evaluate the candidate’s: personal qualities, experiences, leadership qualities, client handling, crisis management, and what have you.
Therefore, I do not see any convincing reason way the NABP sticks to TOEFL-ibt, which is partly based on individuals subjective assessment. Make your own judgment, as to whether TOEFL-ibt is superior to employers’ face-to-face evaluation. As to me, by all means, the later is superior to measuring competence from different dimensions.”

Part II: Why is the NABP making TOEFL-ibt as a rate-limiting factor?

“...Today I am here with two words that I found in the ETS’ TOEFL-ibt performance report sent to me. It goes like this, “Your response indicate that you are able to speak in English about your personal experiences and opinions in a mostly clear and coherent manner; your speech is mostly clear with only occasional errors……” The over all score was fair. To refresh my memory on the meaning of the above highlighted words, I flipped the dictionary that I have with me i.e. Webster’s New WorldTM College Dictionary, 4th ed. Asthese two words are defined to fit different contexts, I have done my best to pick up what is contextual to the evaluators wording. In the dictionary, “Coherent” is defined as: (1) logically connected, consistent, and clearly articulated; capable of logical, intelligible speech, thought, etc and “Clear” is defined as obvious, unmistakable, and free from confusion. My argument is that if one is able to speak English coherently and clearly, “under stressful condition (the test)” and in a very limited time, then one can imagine how he/she could speak the language under relaxed conditions. Guys, I am not clear with what is needed.
The other relevant point that needs to be mentioned here is the unfair conclusion made by ETS staffs. Whenever, test takers try to be selective in their vocabulary use to express their ideas, they presume that candidates have vocabulary limitations. To me what matters most is whether one conveys his/her intention to others, clearly and coherently. One should not also forget that the words used in the day-to-day communication of pharmacy service are different. Therefore, it is not difficult to envision how rich these candidates could be in those vocabularies. I am optimistic in that the NABP will consider their requirements and come up with a better and objective instrument to measure candidates’ capacity to communicate.“