This past year will remain as one of the most eventful in the history of cytopathology. From the whimper of the Wall Street Journal article in February concerning Pap Mills to the NIH "Meeting to Standardize Terminology for Cytologic Diagnosis of Cervical and Vaginal Pathology" in December, hardly a month went by without a momentous event taking place. The Centers for Disease Control got into the act by sponsoring two meetings addressing quality assurance issues, including the definition of adequacy in a Papanicolaou smear. Along the way, the American Board of Pathology announced its decision to offer examinations for added qualification in cytopathology, no doubt a prelude for a subspecialty board in the future. The government chose Halloween eve (a prelude of sort?) to announce the new regulations affecting the future practice of cytopathology in the United States. And as if on cue, many organizations stepped up their proficiency testing, monitoring programs, and other measures to assure the quality of our diagnoses. In the meantime, many voices decried the extreme shortage of cytotechnologists, while, paradoxically, training programs either closed or had trouble filling their vacancies. Jack Frable covered cytotechnology education during the