Algernon

yeah. thanks :) don't misunderstand me. i wasn't advocating anyone not study. just saying i didn't and being honest about what happened. thing is...there's a lot of fear-culture in the world of nursing. always made me sick to see it. i'm one of those people who does take life seriously, but in a very laid back way. but i mean what i say and i care VERY much about those who are close to me. i don't need people creating fear for me to motivate me. fear is a terrible motivator and just destroys the heart and soul over time and makes people crazy. life is scary enough already. yes, the test will 'change your life' but u can retake it in california (my original point) which is so cool. and certainly there's no downside to studying before the test! :) i just didn't want to. i'm only talking about my situation. i have a job. i'll get around to nursing soon...but i'm not in a rush. i've enjoyed the break from school/nursing. i just want those incredible people out there who are scared to death to have some perspective. to those people: the test has nothing to say, really, about what kind of person you are, or who you are. nothing. take your time. b ez on yourself. one step at a time. just laugh off the fear-preachers.

Wow. There are so many cool people on here. I'm so happy to hear my experience, or outlook, was helpful to some people out there. That REALLY makes me happy. To think that even one person out there was less afraid of this "big bad test." It's not really a big deal in the long run. Easy does it. Victory is inevitable. Thanks again for all the cheers :) joyfulone (hope I got the name right) - i'm so proud of you!!! Don't buy into the fear or the hype. Don't believe what they say. You are absolutely capable.

Oh no! I had no idea there were so many messages on here!!! I can't believe it. I FAILED the test. I eventually got the results in the mail (it took about 3.5 weeks) and saw that I was close to passing in every category--but not close enough. Ever since, it's been something in the back of my mind. Far, far back of my mind. I haven't wanted to think about it. One thing I wish I'd known before going in is that the test will ask you the same question more than once--even if you got it right. I remember trying to hedge my bets sometimes, thinking, "Uh oh...it's asking me that question again, giving me a chance to get it right this time." But now I know the test will ask you a more difficult form of the question if you answered correctly, to ensure you really "get it." Or it asks you an easier form if you answered incorrectly. I think that would have been helpful. But I don't know if that would have made a difference. So! I can't help but smile and feel a lot of gratitude and connection to everyone here. I feel bad to have started the thread and then just disappeared. I certainly don't mean for this to be a "tsk tsk, don't do what I did" thread--but then again, maybe someone will read this and feel motivated to study a bit and save themselves some headache. Take care everyone! Thanks for the support. xo

My heart most definitely is softened and goes out to all those wishing to carry their history of better choices forward into something great. I wish all such people the best!

Interesting. I'd never heard that. I didn't realize Erikson said elders who have enough integrity will not fear death which translates to security for their children. I wonder how it is that integrity means death is not feared. Any thoughts?

Well...I appreciate your opinion and I'll think about it more (I always allow that I just have a giant blind spot, as I often do). My thoughts, in response: I think its an unproved assumption that limiting the number of tries only allows the competent to make it through. It might be true, as you say, but it might not. I'm just not sure of the evidence that relates NCLEX in fewer tries to ultimate competence on the job. And...unlimited number of tries would not demean the profession, as far as I can see, because it already is set at unlimited number of tries. Unless you're saying it has already demeaned the profession? I know one can sit an unlimited number of times for the bar (which is also pass/fail) and this fact (as far as I know) does not demean the profession (by itself). I know many atty's who have sat multiple times for the bar, and the mayor of Los Angeles may never have passed (despite multiple attempts, and never any proof he passed). Just interesting side notes, not directly related I realize.

But why? What harm comes of endless chances? In other words, what would a cap on number of times specifically prevent?

Yeah. I see I put those "three strikes and you're dumb" words in your mouth. Sorry. You mention playing the odds...the idea that, given enough time, someone could pass by luck. But...I think the test is supposedly designed to rule out luck. I just can't get away (so far) from the concept that if the test is sound and does what it supposedly does, then luck will not actually conquer the exam. So if someone is eventually able to pass the test, then at that point they must be minimally competent (assuming the test is valid in the first place). I therefore think it's absolutely just that someone (especially after years of dedication and investment) be given the chance to continue increasing their nursing intelligence until they think well enough to answer NCLEX questions. And, I will admit my own bias: I think the NCLEX questions are pretty "out there." Most of them, anyway. Yes. As long as the test actually does this with validity. Again, if it does, then we have to trust the results, whether they come today, tomorrow, or five years from now for someone. A lot of these questions are priority questions. As in, "Hey. Which of the following conditions is the VERY VERY VERY WORST,even though they're all, or mostly, VERY bad?" There are just a lot of bizarre questions that don't translate to real world situations, IMO. I understand the need to have a standard benchmark that we can use to shore up our banner of "professionalism," but I also believe it mostly serves this purpose alone. I meant to say I don't think there is an actual functional need, but I do recognize the political need in the real world. That said, I feel that way about the standardized tests for most of those professions u mentioned. They're pretty silly in the end. I doubt most lawyers or MDs could pass the Bar or MCAT a year or two into their respective professions. Anyway. Good discussing things with you. I really like this website. Tons of cool people. I like this face, even if he is blue--or maybe because.

I totally missed this. Great observation. I love being made aware of false sets like this (as if there are only two possibilities that are also mutually exclusive and inversely related).

Melinurse - That makes me laugh. I remember when my ex took her LSAT (exam to get into law school). She actually took depends to the exam (and if I remember correctly, she used them). This is COMMON among LSAT test takers, I've heard. I've talked to others who buy some device (I think it's called the "stadium pal") that's like a condom cathether thing. I like it when people can laugh at their fear, or the test--it's when you lose your sense of humor that you're probably in trouble. Thanks for the support! I never imagined there'd be so many cool, supportive people I've never even met on allnurses. It's actually much more cool to be part of this big nursing gang than I ever thought it would be. this smoking icon is funny

I have.

Questions that must be answered, when asking this question, include: Does the NCLEX accurately predict RN competency? Is it valid? Even if the answer is yes, we can't absolutely conclude that it is therefore the ONLY predictor of RN competency. That would be illogical. Even if the NCLEX successfully filters out/predicts individuals who will better perform nursing duties safely and effectively this does not mean there are not other filters that would not achieve the same function (or that the two filters would not overlap for some individuals and not for others). Is the NCLEX even necessary? (I believe that good on the job training plus good performance evaluations would eliminate the need for the NCLEX, if necessary. Obviously we do not face that necessity. I'm just saying: if for some reason we could no longer adminster the NCLEX, I find it hard to believe the RN workforce would suddenly be filled with incompetents. Nursing school and competent supervisors plus competent training should be filter enough.) We know the NCLEX itself can be taught. There are ample review courses out there that can teach enough NCLEX strategy to enable many to passt his exam who otherwise could never do so on their own, with their own independent thinking. Yet we have many who never seek out (or who are unable to pay for) these instructors. To arbitrarily pick a number (three times) when there are so many variables out there (far more than I mentioned here) seems senseless to me. What is the reason for picking the number three? And, in defense of those who need to take the exam five times or more, let me ask this question: do you assume that if someone fails three times, they are incapable of "improving?" What exactly does the NCLEX test, in your opinion, that cannot be learned? If you are not simply applying arbitrary punishment according to your timeline, you must be operating off an assumption that the NCLEX tests something that cannot be learned. Otherwise,why not give someone the chance to learn whatever "it" is and demonstrate they've learned it on the NCLEX? If the NCLEX is truly valid, as you seem to believe, then it should be valid whether someone passes it the first time of the 30th time, should it not? The million or more reasons it may take someone that many times to pass it should have no meaning if the test is TRULY valid. I'm not saying it is. I'm just pointing out that your own faith in the NCLEX defeats an arbitrary "three strikes and you're dumb" belief. Either you believe someone can improve their nursing critical skills set or you do not. Also, just because someone is anxious when it comes to exams, they will not necessarily be anxious during a medical emergency. This is more bad logic and it would be sensless at best, and cruel at worst, to judge someone as incompetent to be in medical situations simply because of their assumed test anxiety and your belief this anxiety is universally transferrable. I would be disappointed if someone took these statements to be "flames." I appreciate the questions asked, the ability to participate in this discussion, and I stand behind my points pending better points.

moonischasingme1 - That's GREAT! Congrats

velardelynch - i'd get a kick out of knowing as well. i checked the CA BON. no signs yet. jnjbnr - it was the NCLEX RN exam. not sure if you're talking about CA or not. CA doesn't do the 3-day quick results, but i hear u can see ur results on the BON site (basically whenever they get around to processing/posting it)

iloveclay - Cool. Thanks! I definitely wish you luck!