I became a social worker because I wanted to join a profession whose mission is to fight against injustice and inequality and to advocate for the disenfranchised. Ironically, I have become disenfranchised from my own profession and soon will be the victim of injustice and inequality in the form of an invalid and unreliable oral exam. Unbelievably all of these injustices are perpetrated by social workers who are also supposed to share these same ideals. Each candidate is given 5 minutes to review these 7 sentences and take notes. In content area II of the oral applicants are evaluated on 12 different associated knowledges within that one content area.
Applicants receive one single numerical score for each content area.
The numerical score will correspond with a table that consists of generic standard responses regarding whether or not the response is determined to be deficient. Neither the numerical score nor the table will provide applicants with any individualized information about why their response was determined deficient or which of the different associated knowledges was not covered sufficiently. The BBS has made no attempts to explain the discrepancy between the pass rates for the written and oral exams, or in the rates prior to its standardization in 1992 and after. In their report to the Sunset Review and during testimony the BBS failed to offer any explanation for these discrepancies. The BBS continues to claim that the oral examination protects California consumers.