monkeyhq

Please try not to stress about this too much. We have had at least three people here on at least three different forums on AllNurses who were charged and PASSED. This trick is not accurate, so please take a deep breath, and try to find some way to distract yourself until you have received official notification of your results. Hugs to you, and I wish you all the best!

People who passed have been charged using this method. The charge being processed doesn't guarantee that you have ultimately failed, and it is non-refundable. If you don't have it to spend, don't do try it, because you do risk a charge regardless of pass/fail.

Yeah, lots of people claim it is accurate--read the hundreds of posts on AN alone. But it's not accurate. We keep repeating this so that persons new to a thread see that it is not and fully understand the risks associated with a silly 'trick' that is not accurate, and has the potential for high cost. People who PASSED have been charged. Do you know what is 100% accurate? Getting early results for $8 from Pearson Vue in just 48 hours. So, risk $200, pay $8, or get your accurate BON results absolutely FREE. Considering how broke nursing students usually are, to use your own term, well DUH! On another note, I already have the title of my Master's Thesis: Instant Gratification Psychosis: Nature or Nurture? A Study of Millennial Generation (aka Generation-Y) Nursing School Graduates

WRONG! This is an untrue statement. There have been some who were charged and passed, and some who were not charged and failed. The "trick" is just a trick. It is not accurate, and you do risk losing $200.

SOME PEOPLE WHO PASSED HAVE HAD THEIR CREDIT CARDS SUBMIT WITH THE 200.00 NON-REFUNDABLE CHARGE. The trick does not work.

Just because one gets what they think is a good pop-up, and then officially hears they passed does not mean the new trick 'works'. I haven't heard (on AN forums anyway) of a single person getting their credit card charged, and subsequently learning they failed. Your credit card being charged if you failed is, at this point, an assumption. I haven't heard of a single person getting their credit card charged, and subsequently passing. If the negative cannot be confirmed (failing), then the positive is not confirmed (passing). 90% of test takers pass. Where is the input from the other 10% (since the PV website change)? In order to assume the 'trick' works, you have to have evidence (and a significant amount, at that) that the input process is identical for each user, and that the results of CC transmission screens are different (one processes your card, the other doesn't), and that those differences equal differing outcomes (pass or fail). So far, all I have heard is that cards haven't been charged, and everyone has passed. I haven't heard the opposite. Because of this, there is zero evidence to support that this 'trick' works.

A lot of people are assuming this is the case, but there is no proof that this new trick works. EVERYONE who has reported under this new so-called 'trick' has gotten the same screen and we haven't heard from a single poster that had their card charged (on this forum anyway). Not one. Considering the number of students here who have tried it, I would like to know how many actually failed the test, but still got the same screen. Until that time, this 'trick' is debunked. The only accurate result is the result given by your BON.

That is hysterical! Poor psych grads would so question their choice of profession...

First, thank you so much for the compliment. Second, it would be so cool if they could do something of that nature, but since it is the board that ultimately decides issuing the license, they do have an obligation to get it to the board first. Thinking about that, if a NB is down, and a digital transmission cannot happen, the result would be further delayed. If there is a power outage in the middle of exams, and a host of other problems, there would be a delay. I think the 48 HR window is sufficient to allow for any technical problems, repairs, plus verification, etc. 24 HR may not be enough to technically get the job done, in some cases. Another problem I could see with an immediate 'preliminary' result (as in when the computer shuts down from testing) is what could go down in the test center. This is a pretty big deal. Can you imagine the inconsolable despair some test takers would have at failure, and the excitement others would have at passing, and the disruption that would create in the test center? The undue additional anxiety for those waiting in the lobby to start their exam? The anger--and potential for violent outburst--of someone who failed? I think PV would have to appoint psychiatric staff to every test center in the country, lol. And if we use the reactions most of us who have passed (or failed) felt at the time we got the result, that would be a pretty big job for any psychiatrist. I wouldn't want that job for the world! I would rather empty bedpans all day long than deal with that job on a daily basis.

AN is a very small microcosm when compared to the number of students taking the test daily. Further, this sample is saturated with forums about the NCLEX. Everyone else (which would be the majority of students), certainly are not reading about the PVT in their cafeteria bulletin boards. AN is too small and too saturated a sample to be considered accurate evidence that there is significant loss of quick result fees for PV (20 years accounting here before nursing). There is no basis of fact in the contention that PV fixed a software glitch to increase profits on early release results. That is just conjecture and supposition. What is known is that the entire website underwent changes, and the website was down for those changes. Periodic upgrades to software, and maintenance on a website, is just normal and expected. I also believe that they are concerned about incorrect information being disseminated through a glitch, no matter if it is for the NCLEX or OTHER proctored tests. My basis for this are the numerous news stories about some of the problems PV has experienced due to various glitches in testing center software and web software. There are loads of them. That speaks to a need to upgrade software to save their reputation, and thus save money, and is considered routine in e-commerce. Accuracy and reputation are much more profitable. Especially when you consider the microcosm of students who even know about PVT (my class had 120 students--I never heard anyone else even mention PVT), then deduct those who found out through their BON faster anyway so they didn't need a 2-day fee, then deduct those whose fee was included in their school payment for the test anyway, then deduct those who chose to pay anyway. The number left would be negligible. As for testing fees, as it was explained to me in school (and I admit this information could be incorrect--just going off what was said to me), NCSBN writes the test and works with PV to proctor the test. Yes, PV collects a test fee, but as it was explained to me, that fee is broken down based on the value of time and resources needed for the test, which is written by NCSBN. PV must follow the protocols for the exam that NCSBN establishes--which includes a rigorous battery of software development for the exam itself, cost of computers, cost of administration, staffing, brick and mortar test centers, and so many other associated costs. Thus, that cost IS established by NCSBN. NCSBN writes the test, they get to make the rules, and those rules cost money. The state fee paid is for the issuance of license and administration from the state board. Just to be clear, I am not trying to be nasty either. :-) but there is scant evidence to prove PV loses any measurable income from $7 2-day fees by not repairing their software--if that was their reason, they wouldn't have taken loses for over five years. And as they are a testing agency, improving accuracy and fixing glitches is essential to their reputation, and a routine process for any business. There is nothing to see here. When all things are considered, we pay far less for our tests than many schools charge for one credit hour. I don't think that is a bad deal. And two days is nothing--I've waited longer for my old OB/PEDS teacher to score an in class exam. Anyway, that's where I stand. Maybe we just agree to disagree :-)

No one drilled the expectation of using a 'glitch' into your head except YOU. Jeez, it's like being angry that someone repaired the hole in the fence where you used to take the short cut. Get over it, you were trespassing anyway. The sidewalk is only 20' further away. Is it really something to get so upset over? Don't you wait for Xmas and special holidays? Think of it that way...

I disagree with you completely. There is not evidence to support your argument. Not all nursing students even knew about the PVT, and in some states, your results are posted at the BON before the PV 48 HR quick results. And Pearson doesn't set the fee for the test. That's all NCSBN setting the price.

And you expected to use an unofficial, often incorrect, software glitch to find out your results? You actually expected this? Did PV promise you this? No, they did not. PV never intended for this glitch, and certainly never intended it to be used to bypass getting official results. Search all the threads here and see just how often the PVT was WRONG. What do you think is more important, a student receiving accurate results, or your instant gratification that you might have passed (or failed)? There is nothing whatsoever on the NCLEX or PV websites that discuss a guarantee for your results by way of the 'PVT'. Nothing. In fact, the reason there is a wait is so PV can double score your test to verify all systems tallying your score are accurate. Be grateful for that accuracy, and the technology that allows it. Back in the Scantron days, if the machine didn't read your bubble, you got it wrong and that was that. If you think this is stressful, you have no idea what lay ahead for you in nursing. Take a deep breath, and relax. The world is not ending.

Everyone I have ever met says they thought they failed (including me), but most I know passed. How many questions you get really is irrelevant. You can pass beautifully with 75, and you can fail terribly with 75. Go do something to suck out the energy from your body, watch TV, call an old friend, or whatever works for you to take your mind off of it. Check your BON in the morning, and the next day. The time will fly by before you know it, and you will have your results! Best of luck!

I posted this in another thread, and I apologize for the duplicate post, but some suggested it be posted here. I think people need to consider this... Some students are actually calling PV and harassing them about fixing their software glitch. Not smart. Imagine this scenario: student: 'I'm so ______ with you pieces of ______, you are just doing this to get more money!' PV: 'Nope.' student: 'if you don't bring back your glitch, I'm going to write my nursing board' PV: 'mmmmmmkay, go ahead' student: 'do it right now! I am testing tomorrow and I want to get my results right away...if it isn't ready, I am going to give the testing center hell and tell everyone there what pieces of ___________ you are!' PV: 'where are you testing?' student: 'at _______________ college quad' PV: 'Thanks. You need to call the BON and arrange an alternate means of testing. If you show up to the test center, you will be refused admission to the test. We will also be notifying your board of nursing about your threats.' student: 'huh?' PV: click Be patient. Be smart. Don't call and harass PV. Is it really worth risking all your schooling, and your reputation, to complain to them about fixing their software? It isn't. Trust me. If you try this new so-called 'trick' everyone is talking about, you run the risk of being misinformed. The only accurate predictor of pass/fail is issued by your BON.