I take issue with those who rail against the use of real live people as patients for the clinical examinations. If this argument were to prevail, then dental schools would be composed of four years of mannequin "treatment."
I served for a number of years as an examiner for a regional testing service. I can personally vouch for the utmost professionalism of the people involved, as well as their absolute dedication to the fairness of the examination and to the safety and well-being of the people who so graciously consent to be patients for the examination.
I also can attest to the value of inviting clinical instructors from the dental schools to observe the examination in progress. They are witnesses to the fairness of the examination, as well as to the valid clinical shortcomings that can lead to failure.
In my experience, it was an extremely rare occurrence that a no-show patient caused a failure. To say it has never happened would be inaccurate, and it is an aspect of the examination process that needs very careful consideration when assessing the value of live-patient participation.
Vigorous discussion and debate is a very necessary process if we are to progress as a profession. However, those who choose to participate in the debate would do well to base their varying positions on logical thought rather than on illogical, self-negating arguments. Show me a better method of proactive assessment of the clinical competence of the entry-level dentist and you will have a convert.
By the way, I am all in favor of licensure by credentials for those who have an established track record of providing acceptable dental care.
