No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
Through a closer spirit of cooperation and adherence to some standards, such as the S$abus, we will be able to bring about a greater uniformity, clearness and understanding in the forming of the board questions. The standardization of the questions is, we know, a much debated topic and will no doubt be thoroughly discussed when we hear the report of the Committee on "Uniform Questions and Examinations." We therefore do not wish to open the question other than to emphasize the value of the conference and cooperative idea and the great possibilities that may come therefrom in bringing about clearer and more uniform examinations. I n this connection we wish to present, without comment, a few questions that have been submitted to us by various members of the Conference, in the hope that we might be able to use them in a plea for the need of a real conference and development of a closer cooperative spirit between the boards and the colleges.
"Give the chemical formula for S and Hg." "How may we classify all matter?" "Name the most positive and most negative element."
"Name the sulphites found naturally," etc.
Last year, at the joint session, there was evident throughout the entire discussion a general expression of feeling that the boards, after all, were the ones who could best raise the standards of pharmacy by demanding higher educational requirements of candidates for registration. As, for example, by requiring a t least as a minimum, high school graduation from all candidates seeking registration as pharmacists and where possible a t least two years of college work. In reply to these suggestions the statement is frequently made that the boards have no authority to advance the standards. Such statements, however, are not always based on the actual facts in the case, but rather on personal opinion and preference. There are, of course, instances where the requirements for registration are specifically expressed in the law. I n such cases they may usually be divided into two groups, one in which only a minimum requirement is specified and the other where the law is more specific and fixes a maximum and minimum requirement. In the first case the requirement may be raised by the board without conflicting in any way with the spirit of the law; the question is a matter of judgment of the board. In the second instance, if the requirements seem too low, and it is deemed advisable to change them, the standard of the examinations could be raised, thereby practically necessitating, on the part of the candidate, a secondary school or even college training.
Another reason why we believe the boards should take the lead in raising the standards, both for preliminary school training as well as their examinations, is found in the practice of reciprocity now generally adopted by the boards of most states. We believe in reciprocity and feel that it is an evidence of marked progress but, while we may, the question naturally arises, are the requirements and the standards of all boards the same? If not, how are they adjusted so as t o make them equitable? Are the examinations of one board of the same pedagogic value and fairness as a test of a candidate's qualifications as those of other boards? We doubt this, if the general average of the examinations is taken into account, and believe our opinion will be SUStained by the admissions made by various members in the discussions of the question that have taken place in our individual and joint sessions.
The prospective candidate soon learns where the "easy boards" are located and, barring the extreme distances sometimes necessary to reach them, he will usually seek out the examinations of least resistance. On the other hand, we may have states where there are practically no educational requirements other than the ability to pass the examination. I n such instances we believe that it is fair t o assume that the examinations given are not of the same standard as in those states where specific educational requirements are demanded.
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES