Try not to Miss these Certification-Board ISEE test prep with Free PDF

killexams.com gives the Latest and 2022 refreshed killexams ISEE Questions and Answers with Actual ISEE Test Questions for new subjects of Certification-Board ISEE Exam. Practice our Real ISEE Questions Improve your insight and finish your test with High Marks. We ensure your accomplishment in the Test Center, covering every last one of the subjects of the test and improving your Knowledge of the ISEE test. Pass with a 100 percent guarantee with our right inquiries.

Exam Code: ISEE Practice test 2022 by Killexams.com team
ISEE Independent School Entrance Examination

The Independent School Entrance test (ISEE) is an admission test developed by the Educational Records Bureau (ERB) for its member schools as part of their admission process. The ISEE was created by Measurement Incorporated, Durham, NC, and ERB, with assistance from faculty of ERB member schools.

The current edition has been updated to include educational assessment best practices and to align with national standards in English and mathematics as articulated in standards adopted by the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). Nearly two-thirds of the questions on the ISEE were developed by ERB-member faculty and administrators from a cross section of independent schools across the United States under the direction of test development specialists at Measurement Incorporated.

The ISEE is the admission test of choice for many independent schools throughout the country and abroad. Test sites are available in numerous cities during the admission testing season. The ISEE consists of five sections at three levels designed to measure the verbal and quantitative reasoning and achievement of students in grades 4–11 seeking admission to grades 5–12 in independent schools. Students seeking admission to grades 5 or 6 take the Lower Level; students seeking admission to grades 7 or 8 take the Middle Level; and students seeking admission to grades 9–12 take the Upper Level.

It is important to note that the ISEE may not be taken for practice; it may be taken only for the purpose of providing scores to participating schools as part of the admission process. An applicant may take the ISEE only once per admission season or six month window.

The five sections that make up the ISEE are (in order of testing): Verbal Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, studying Comprehension, Mathematics Achievement, and an Essay which is written by the student in his or her own handwriting in response to a given writing prompt. Each section is designed to tap into a unique aspect of a students preparation for academic work.
The first four sections are composed of multiple-choice questions. The fifth section, the essay, is not scored but requires the student to respond in his or her own handwriting to a preselected writing prompt.
The first two sections, Verbal Reasoning and Quantitative Reasoning, measure the applicants reasoning ability.
The Upper Level Verbal Reasoning section consists of two types of items: vocabulary and sentence completion. Each vocabulary item consists of an abstract, grade-level appropriate word followed by four possible answer choices. Each sentence completion item consists of a sentence with one missing word or pair of words followed by four potential answer choices. A student must select the word or pair of words that most appropriately completes the context of the sentence.
At the Upper Level, the Quantitative Reasoning section consists of word problems and quantitative comparisons. The word problems differ somewhat from traditional mathematics achievement items in that some of them require either no calculation or simple calculation.
Mathematics Achievement items conform to national mathematics standards and ask the student to identify the problem and find a solution to a problem. The items require one or more steps in calculating the answer.

Independent School Entrance Examination
Certification-Board Independent Practice Test
Killexams : Certification-Board Independent VCE test - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/ISEE Search results Killexams : Certification-Board Independent VCE test - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/ISEE https://killexams.com/exam_list/Certification-Board Killexams : Taking the Bar Exam

Contact: OCS & OPIA

BAR ADMISSION IN A single STATE

Generally, your employer will only require you to be admitted to the bar in the jurisdiction in which you are practicing. You should contact your employer to confirm the jurisdiction to which they would like you to be admitted.

If you haven’t secured a job by the time bar registration deadlines roll around, you should sign up for the bar in the jurisdiction in which you are focusing your job search. This is quite common for students seeking public interest positions, for which the job search can extend into the spring. Carefully monitor the bar deadlines of any state you are considering working in and meet with an OPIA or OCS advisor to discuss your unique situation.

Note that for LL.M. students, eligibility to sit for a particular bar test varies by state.

BAR test RECIPROCITY AND SCORE Transfer

For a variety of reasons, some students choose to apply for bar admission to two different states immediately after graduation. Others may be curious about being admitted to a second state later on in their career. Processes such as “bar reciprocity,” “waiving in,” or “admission on motion” refer to a state bar admitting an attorney under a more streamlined procedure based on their membership in another state’s bar. Some states, including California and Florida, do not allow such a procedure, and require practicing attorneys to sit for the bar test in their state instead.

Some states allow you to transfer your bar test score from one state to another, with some additional state-specific requirements.

Bar test score transfer is commonly used by students and junior attorneys who have not practiced law for the number of years that a particular state requires for waiving in.

Some state bar examiners will accept Multistate Bar test (MBE) scores from a concurrent exam. Practically speaking, this means that applicants will sit for three (very likely consecutive) days of exams: one day for the MBE, and one day for each of the two states. You must, however, check your state’s requirements and the schedule for the examinations to see if this is allowed or even feasible.

Additionally, a number of states, including Colorado, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, and will accept transferred scores from the Uniform Bar test (UBE), a uniform series of tests (including the MBE) administered over two consecutive days simultaneously in the jurisdictions currently administering the UBE. Learn about your state’s UBE status with the NCBE’s interactive map, and double-check that state’s bar admission site as well. Practically speaking, this means you would take the two-day UBE in a particular UBE state, which then results in a portable score that can be used to apply for admission to other UBE jurisdictions. You will likely have additional state-specific requirements in order to be admitted to a UBE state. For example, in New York, you are required to take an online course on New York State-specific law known as the New York Law Course (NYLC), as well as an online examination, the New York Law test (NYLE), in addition to the UBE.

For states that permit bar reciprocity or admission on motion, requirements for waiving into a particular jurisdiction vary widely but often include a requirement that an attorney practice for a certain number of years.

Note that military spouse attorneys may be able to apply for a temporary permit to practice while in a state on military orders without needing to take an additional bar exam.  See here for more information.

Be aware that reciprocity and score transfer processes may require a lengthy waiting period while your application is reviewed. Make sure to check with your employer about their expectations surrounding jurisdiction and timeline.

Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:47:00 -0500 en text/html https://hls.harvard.edu/dept/dos/taking-the-bar-exam/
Killexams : Who Are You? Auditor or Consultant, And Nonetheless Cheating on Exams

Monday, August 1, 2022

As reported by Bloomberg, at a PLI conference in October of 2021 the Acting Chief Accountant of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Paul Munter, issued a statement concerning the requirements found in SEC rules that, an auditor who is attesting to the accuracy of client financial statements, must be independent of the client. Munter emphasized that the determination of independence is not a “checklist compliance exercise under” the SEC rules. He went on: accountants, audit firms, registrants, and their audit committees should never make the mistake of assuming that just because a particular circumstance is not expressly prohibited in, or captured by, [the SEC rules], their independence analysis is over. The general standard requires an evaluation of auditor independence, including an assessment of independence both in fact and appearance from the perspective of a reasonable investor.

Munter said that the key question is whether the auditor “is capable of exercising the objective and impartial judgment of all issues encompassed within” the auditor’s engagement. He expressed concern about the nature of the relationship between auditor and client, including the issues posed by accounting firms providing non-audit services and the resulting business relationships that can and do develop between the accounting firm and the audit client.  He said somewhat harshly: “I have less than zero sympathies for independence violations that resulted from firms having prioritized growing consulting practices, growing non-audit services, prioritizing those over the integrity of its independence to its issuer audit clients”. “Auditor independence” Munter cautioned “is grounded in an understanding of accounting as a profession rather than an industry.”

It is against this backdrop of potential conflicts which would or might undercut the independence of an accounting firm auditing client financial services that one of the so-called “Big Four” accounting firms is seriously considering splitting into two separate companies: one to audit client financial statements; the other to provide consulting and other business services (including, in some instances, legal advice). The accounting firm Ernst & Ernst was founded in 1903 in Cleveland, Ohio by two brothers, Alwin and Theodore Ernst. Arthur Young, a Scottish accountant who emigrated to Chicago, started Arthur Young & Company in 1906. After substantial growth, becoming two of the then so-called Big Eight accounting firms in the U.S., the two firms merged in 1989 to become Ernst & Young, LLP (“EY”). On 31 May 2022 Bloomberg reported that EY was “considering whether to separate its global audit and advisory practices”; noting that a “key reason” for this was “tighter ethics regulations”, which “are holding back the growth of …[EY’s] lucrative consulting business.” The Bloomberg article notes further that “EY’s audit practice…could be a further drag on revenues as the firm faces hefty fines and billion-dollar lawsuits over its work for failed German payment processor Wirecard AG and for London-listed NMC Health Plc.” The piece also observes that EY had previously sold its global consulting arm to Capgemini in 2000 for $11 billion, “only to build up that service line again to the point where it now trumps the audit practice in revenue.” And the conflicts are real; Bloomberg reports that “EY paid $10 million…[in] August [2021] to settle SEC allegations that it violated auditor independence rules in seeking to win business from a competitor.”

The Bloomberg article about the possible separation of practices was corroborated on 20 June 2022 by the Wall Street Journal, which reported that a preliminary draft of the separation plan was being evaluated by the partners of EY. The separation would involve an eventual public offering of stock in the consulting business. The Journal disclosed that the draft plan would involve substantial cash payouts to EY partners: $1.7 million to $3.6 million for those staying with the audit practice; and $5.9 million to $8.1 million for the partners in the new consultancy firm. The plan calls for a partner vote (if EY leadership decides to proceed) in January 2023. Both the Bloomberg and the Journal articles point out that no plan of separation of two practices can occur without regulatory approval, especially on the audit side of the business. Hence, one might expect that EY, its leaders, and its employees would wish to take extra care to comply with the best practices in accounting, including auditing and related attest services. Consistent with the statements of Paul Munter, accountants are to always remember that theirs is a profession, and not just “an industry”.

One of the critical and continuing areas of professionalism for accountants is taking regular courses in professional education, including ethics. As the SEC’s 28 June 2022 Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings against EY says:

State accountancy boards require CPAs [Certified Public Accountants] to complete continuing professional education (CPE) courses to ensure that they remain knowledgeable about them ethical obligations and current accounting standards. CPAs must pass examinations designed to test their understanding of these materials to get credit for these courses and maintain their licenses.

The Order goes on to note that “over multiple years, a significant number of EY audit professionals cheated on these exams by using answer keys and sharing them with colleagues.” According to the Order from 2017 to 2021, 49 professionals sent or received answer keys, and “hundreds of other audit professionals cheated on CPE courses.” An additional “significant number of EY professionals’ who did not themselves cheat, violated the EY Code of Conduct “by failing to report” the cheating by others. The Order also reports that this was not a first-time offense, as between 2012 and 2015 over 200 EY professionals used a software flaw on the EY CPE testing platform to pass exams despite having only “a low number of correct answers”. Each time this type of misbehavior occurred EY took “disciplinary actions and repeatedly warned its professionals not to cheat.”

On 17 June 2019, the Commission issued an order finding that another one of the Big Four accounting firms “had engaged in misconduct, that included, among other things, cheating on internal training exams”. In fact, that other firm had, according to the SEC’s 17 June 2019 Press Release, altered past audit work after receiving stolen information about inspections of that firm by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”), and numerous audit professionals cheated on internal exams by “improperly sharing answers and manipulating test results.” The PCAOB was created as a non-profit Federal corporation to oversee the accounting profession by Congressional passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom accounting scandals. As the then Co-Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division observed, “Investors and other market professionals rely on these gatekeepers to fulfill a critical role in our capital markets.” That other Big Four accounting firm paid a civil penalty of $50 million as part of its settlement with the Commission.

Given EY’s checkered history of cheating on CPA exams, it is not surprising that almost immediately after the $50 million settlement with the other firm, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement sent EY a formal request on 19 June 2019 asking if EY had “received any ethics or whistleblower complaints regarding testing associated with any EY training program or continuing professional education course” and requesting the response by 20 June 2019. It should be noted, that although this was a formal request, it was not a subpoena so the response might possibly be viewed as “voluntary”. Also, on 19 June 2019 (in response to the $50 million settlement by the other Big Four firm) EY’s U.S. Chair and Managing Partner sent a message to ALL U.S. personnel that “[s]haring answers on internal or external tests or evaluations is highly unethical behavior and will not be tolerated at EY.” She further noted that the SEC enforcement action “serves as an important reminder of our responsibility to serve the public interest and the need to always act with integrity and honesty.”

EY responded to the Commission on the 20th of July as requested, detailing five matters related to the SEC’s question; none of those matters “involved potentially ongoing misconduct” by current EY employees or which EY had not addressed. However, also on 19 June an EY employee “reported to a manager that a professional” in EY’s audit group had e-mailed that employee answers to a CPA ethics exam. The manager informed an EY human resources employee that afternoon, and that information was relayed that day to others in the EY human resource group.

After a series of meetings among EY leadership and EY’s General Counsel Office after June culminating in October 2019, EY determined to conduct a firm-wide investigation to determine the scope of cheating problems and the best corrective steps to take. That investigation, which the Order characterizes as “robust”, determined that many EY audit professionals continued to cheat, including 91 who cheated after the 19 June 2019 message from the U.S. Chair and Managing Partner. EY decided after four more months (i.e., by the end of February 2020) to provide a full report to the PCAOB, because by then EY knew “the extent of the misconduct” and “had a credible plan in place to address the problem.” However, it was only in March 2020 that the PCAOB informed the SEC of the scope of the EY problems, which the Order rather angrily notes were “almost nine months after the June 19, 2019, request.” EY itself NEVER corrected or withdrew its 20 June 2019 response to the Commission.

The Order charged EY with two separate failures: first, the continuing cheating on CPE exams, especially those related to ethics; and second, withholding evidence of the test misconduct from the SEC’s Enforcement Division during the period that the Commission was looking into test cheating by EY professionals. The settlement which EY agreed to on 28 June 2022, is quite constrictive on EY. In addition to a cease-and-desist order and a censure, EY was required to pay $100 million as a civil penalty. More significant, perhaps, is that the Order requires EY to retain two independent consultants: i) the first to review and propose improvements to EY’s quality controls, policies, and procedures relevant to ethics and integrity, including how EY responds to information requests; and ii) the second to review the bases for and the personnel involved in EY’s “disclosure failures”. This second consultant, termed the Remedial IC in the Order, is to be selected by a three-member committee of “EY senior personnel who had no involvement in EY’s conduct relating to the June 2019 Enforcement Division Request, including its failure to correct its submission, and who will have authority to direct and oversee employment and other remedial actions on behalf of the firm.” The Remedial IC is specifically to be tasked to make recommendations to the three-member committee “as to employment actions or other remedial steps.” Obviously, this second consultant structure is designed to impose widespread sanctions against EY personnel, including its leadership and in-house counsel, for the investigation and disclosure steps taken AND NOT TAKEN.

The imposition of the Remedial IC in the context of an incomplete response to the SEC 19 June 2019 Request, where the Request, even though made formally by EY’s regulator with a one-day turnaround, might be seen as technically a “voluntary” response, was seen by at least one Commissioner (Hester Peirce), as an example of regulatory overreach, as laid out in her Statement of 28 June 2022. She also raised concerns about the size of the civil penalty, $100 million, in contrast to the $50 million penalty imposed on the other firm that had engaged in criminal theft of PCAOB materials. Hence, Commissioner Peirce dissented from the SEC Order, although she confirms that she would have supported it if the charge had focused on the continuing cheating on exams and if the remedies had not been so severe.

At the proverbial “End of the Day”, one may wonder how much cooperation and regulatory flexibility the Commission may show if EY does decide to go forward with its attempt to separate the audit practice from the consulting business. As the Commission’s Director of Enforcement states in the SEC’s 28 June 2022 Press Release about the EY proceeding:

This action involves breaches of trust by gatekeepers within the gatekeeper entrusted to audit many of our Nation’s public companies. It’s simply outrageous that the very professionals responsible for catching cheating clients cheated on ethics exams of all things. The SEC will not tolerate integrity failures by independent auditors who choose the easier wrong over the harder right.

In fact, the SEC proceeding and resulting settlement made the front page of the Wednesday, 29 June 2022 Wall Street Journal with the three-column headline “EY to Pay $100 Million Fine in Ethic-Cheating Scandal”. The Journal article notes that the $100 million is “the largest fine ever imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission on an audit firm.” The Journal goes on to observe that “[t]he case is the latest reputational setback for a profession entrusted with overseeing the reliability of public company financial statements.” It appears for all the history of the accounting profession in the 21st century, and particularly that of EY, the personnel of EY have yet to fully confront the question of The Who, which serves as the title for these meanderings.

©2022 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights ReservedNational Law Review, Volume XII, Number 213

Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:36:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.natlawreview.com/article/who-are-you-auditor-or-consultant-and-nonetheless-cheating-exams
Killexams : Study for four CompTIA cybersecurity certification exams for $30

It certainly seems like there’s a new data breach every day, but that might be good news if you want to learn how to be a hacker yourself. No, that doesn’t mean joining the villains. Rather, you can put those skills to good use by finding a company’s vulnerabilities and patching them before nefarious agents take advantage of them. This 2021 CompTIA Security Infrastructure Expert Bundle can show you how.

This four-course collection can help you prepare for a few popular cybersecurity certification exams, which may ultimately help you find employment as a white hat hacker. The courses are provided by iCollege, an online learning hub and official CompTIA partner trusted by Silicon Valley organizations and beyond.

In these courses, you can study for the CAS-003, PT0-001, CS0-002, and SY0-601 exams, which are crucial in validating your risk management, penetration testing, countermeasure, and security architecture skills. Overall, you’ll get over 150 hours of comprehensive training from top-rated instructors.

Want to join the front lines of cyber security? You’ll need to earn your certifications first, and this four-course CompTIA training bundle can help for $30. 

The 2021 CompTIA Security Infrastructure Expert Bundle – $30

Fight Cybercrime on the Front Lines

Prices subject to change.

Wed, 03 Aug 2022 20:00:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://www.pcworld.com/article/825805/study-for-four-comptia-cybersecurity-certification-exams-for-30.html
Killexams : BAFRA certification opens market access

Chhimi Dema

The Bhutan Agriculture and Food Regulatory Authority (BAFRA) in the past year certified 13 individual organic farms and one processing unit in the country.

The crops certified in the farms are tomato, strawberry, kiwi, mandarin, cardamom, turmeric, turmeric powder, ginger, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, bean, onion, chilli, and spinach.

Organic certification is a requirement to demonstrate that a product or operation has met the legal standards.

BAFRA as a food safety organisation in the country is identified as a third-party certification body to ensure an impartial organic certification system which is in practice under Bhutan Organic ensure System.

An official from BAFRA said that the farms have to fulfil the requirements of Bhutan Organic Standard and BAFRA’s organic certification scheme to get organic certification.

BOS is a system that ensures the production and supply of food and that the food materials are free from unnatural treatments, additives and any synthetic agro-chemicals that are hazardous to hum an health and ecosystem.

BAFRA provides organic third-party certification for primary crop production, processing, handling, storage, and marketing.

Bhutan Turmeric House’s owner, Suraj Ghimiray, said that receiving organic certification gives the company more market access.

The company makes powder products from Black and Yellow turmeric.

An official from the Bhutan Herbal Tea said that the organic certification is beneficial to them because it provides them with the niche they look for during export.

BAFRA officials said that the certification helps to increase consumer confidence as the product has goes through an independent auditing and testing process.

“[The certification also] confirms that products and services meet all trusted national and international standards,” the official said.

BAFRA was accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Certification Bodies, Quality Council of India for organic certification as per the requirement of International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) 17065:2012 in September 2021.

ISO is a non-governmental organisation that comprises standards bodies from more than 160 countries.

Wed, 27 Jul 2022 17:35:00 -0500 text/html https://kuenselonline.com/bafra-certification-opens-market-access/
Killexams : Everlywell review 2022: Test kits, pros and cons, and important considerations

We include products we think are useful for our readers. If you buy through links on this page, we may earn a small commission. Here’s our process.

Everlywell offers a wide range of at-home test kits for food sensitivities, thyroid function, human papillomavirus (HPV), COVID-19, and more.

Everlywell does not hold accreditation with the Better Business Bureau (BBB), and it has an A+ rating with the agency.

Out of 24 customer reviews on the BBB, the company’s average rating is 1.04 out of five stars. The company has a high rating with the BBB despite this.

There are 18 customer reviews on Trustpilot. The company’s average rating there is currently 2.1 out of five stars.

Everlywell may be suitable for people who cannot easily visit a doctor’s office. Individuals living in a remote area or experiencing difficulty with mobility may prefer to use an Everlywell at-home test kit.

It may also be a more convenient option for people who work during the day, as they will not need to take time off from work to visit a doctor.

Some individuals may also prefer to complete a sexual health test at home if they feel uncomfortable undergoing testing at a doctor’s office or in a laboratory.

When a person orders an at-home test kit, Everlywell sends the test request to an independent network of doctors. A board certified doctor reviews the request and decides whether it is suitable for the customer.

If the test is suitable for the person, the doctor approves it, and the company sends a test kit to them. The person then follows the instructions in the kit to collect the necessary samples and sends them through the mail to undergo testing in a laboratory.

Once the laboratory technicians have analyzed the person’s samples, they send the results to the doctor who approved the test. The doctor then sends the results to Everlywell, who sends a notification to the customer.

If the doctor believes that the test the person has ordered is not suitable for them, they notify Everlywell, who issues a refund to the customer.

Everlywell encourages customers to share their test results with a healthcare professional. The company states that it is easy for someone to share their test results with a doctor if they want to. However, the company will not disclose test results to anyone without the person’s permission.

Everlywell offers at-home tests for a range of things, including:

The sections below discuss some health tests that doctors commonly order. Everlywell offers at-home testing options for these conditions.

Thyroid conditions

The thyroid is a gland located at the front of the base of the neck. It is responsible for producing hormones that control a wide range of bodily functions.

Hypothyroidism

Hypothyroidism occurs when the thyroid does not produce enough hormones. This condition is also known as underactive thyroid.

Symptoms may include:

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), hypothyroidism affects approximately 5% of people in the United States.

Hyperthyroidism

Hyperthyroidism occurs when the thyroid gland makes too much hormone. This condition is also known as overactive thyroid.

Symptoms may include:

According to the NIH, hyperthyroidism affects just over 1% of people in the U.S.

Everlywell offers tests to measure the three main thyroid hormone levels.

Hormone conditions

Hormones are the body’s chemical messengers. They help with processes such as growth and fertility.

Testosterone

The Hormone Health Network states that both low and high levels of the hormone testosterone can cause symptoms.

For example, low levels of testosterone may lead to:

  • a reduced sex drive
  • poor erections
  • a decreased sperm count

Before puberty, high levels of testosterone in male children can cause tumors, but this is rare.

Follicle-stimulating hormone

High levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) in females may indicate that they have reached menopause. This occurs when the production of hormones in the reproductive system decreases.

During menopause, the following may occur:

Everlywell offers various hormone tests, including a testosterone level test, a test for estradiol and progesterone, and a test for FSH levels.

Allergies

According to the American College of Asthma, Allergy & Immunology (ACAAI), more than 50 million people in the U.S. have an allergy.

Individuals can have allergies to a wide variety of things, such as foods, pets, and dust. The ACAAI states that testing can identify the triggers of these allergic reactions and lead to effective treatment.

Everlywell offers an allergy test that measures for 40 common allergens.

The tests range from $49–$249.

If a person signs up for Everlywell’s membership program, which is called Control, they receive a discount on all the company’s products.

A Control membership costs $24.99 a month. A member can order one qualifying test for free each month, and they get a 20% discount on any other tests.

A person can cancel their membership at any time by contacting Everlywell’s customer care team. There is no cancellation fee.

On the Everlywell website, a person can browse all the tests or filter the results to find tests in their area of concern.

A person can also sign up for Control, Everlywell’s membership program, before making a purchase.

After ordering and receiving a test, carefully follow the instructions and collect a sample. After a person sends off their trial in the pre-paid envelope, Everlywell returns the results within days.

There are a number of companies that provide at-home test kits similar to those by Everlywell.

The table below shows how Everlywell compares with other brands:

Learn more about Everywell’s competitors here:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lists the benefits and risks associated with using at-home health tests.

The FDA does not mention Everlywell or other companies specifically.

Some potential benefits of using at-home tests include the following:

  • They may lead to an early detection of a medical condition when no symptoms are present.
  • The detection of a medical condition can allow a person to take immediate action.
  • They can help monitor things such as blood sugar levels, which can lead to changes in treatment when necessary.
  • The companies keep their customers’ test results confidential.

Some risks to be aware of include the following:

  • Home tests should not replace regular doctor visits.
  • A doctor should interpret laboratory tests within the context of a person’s medical history, physical examination results, and the results of other diagnostic tests.
  • At-home health tests may not be ideal, as there is the possibility of receiving incorrect results.
  • At-home tests are not comparable with tests that hospital laboratories carry out. For example, when looking at cholesterol levels, a lower number may not mean that a person’s cholesterol is truly decreased. This is because different laboratories use different techniques and reference ranges.

In addition, it is advisable to exercise caution when using at-home tests, because the quality may not be the same as that of hospital laboratory tests. Errors may occur with at-home tests for a number of reasons.

If possible, a person should contact a doctor and take any recommended health tests in a doctor-recommended facility.

If a person orders an at-home health test from Everlywell or a similar company and receives results that suggest that they may have a health condition, they should confirm the results with a doctor.

The FDA recommends that people talk with a doctor if they do not feel well or are concerned about their risk of developing a health condition.

The FDA also states that people should regularly visit a doctor, regardless of whether they feel ill.

Get answers to some commonly asked questions about Everlywell and its at-home test kits:

Is Everlywell legitimate?

Everlywell can help provide customers with valuable information about their health in a quick, easy, and convenient way.

The company uses CLIA certified laboratories. This means that its tests undergo regular quality checks and that its laboratories undergo regular inspections.

However, it is important to note that Everlywell tests should not replace a consultation with a doctor. The service offers a convenient way for a person to quickly and easily take control of their health, but a doctor needs to know about any serious concerns a person has about their health and well-being.

How accurate are Everlywell tests?

For some tests, such as the food allergy test, there are studies that question the accuracy of the results. It is advisable for people to be aware of that when using at-home tests, as the quality may not be the same as that of tests that people undergo in a hospital laboratory.

Other factors — including human error, fasting, and medication use — can also produce false-negative or false-positive test results.

How long does it take to get test results from Everlywell?

Test results are usually ready online within 5 business days. When test results are ready, Everlywell sends an email to the customer to let them know. A person can view their results using their Everlywell account.

Everlywell also claims to comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. This means that it will not share a person’s medical information with anyone else without consent.

Everlywell has a high rating with the BBB, and it uses certified laboratories to review and analyze its customers’ tests.

However, the FDA states that it is best for a doctor to evaluate a person’s laboratory test results. This is because doctors need to interpret tests alongside a person’s medical history and physical examination results to make an accurate diagnosis.

Additionally, customer reviews for the company are not positive, and some customers state that Everlywell at-home test kits sometimes provide inaccurate results.

Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:00:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/everlywell-review
Killexams : LetsGetChecked Review

LetsGetChecked tests fall into five categories: sexual health, female health, male health, wellness and coronavirus.

Sexual Health

LetsGetChecked offers the following tests for those who are sexually active, have had unprotected sex or believe they may have been exposed to infection.

Each test is conducted with a finger prick, urine trial or both, and results are available within two to five days. Packaging is discreet and confidential. If necessary, the company will send prescription medication directly to your home as well.

Female Health

LetsGetChecked offers a range of hormone tests (including ovarian reserve and comprehensive female hormone tests) for women curious about their fertility and haven’t been on hormonal contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy for three months. The company also provides tests for polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS)—one of the most common hormonal disorders in women of reproductive age—and vaginal bacterial infections.

Home Female Health Test

Save 30% on a home Cholesterol Test and wide range of Female Health Tests with the code FORBES30. Know your health.

LetsGetChecked prescribes common birth control options as well as medications (if necessary) for positive vaginitis or bacterial vaginosis results.

Female health tests require a finger prick, saliva trial or vaginal swab.

Male Health

LetsGetChecked reports that healthy sperm counts have dropped by 50% in the last 40 years, according to a study conducted on men from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, which also found that hormonal imbalances and reduced testosterone have become a leading health concern for men .

The company’s website says symptoms of hormonal imbalances in men may include low energy, fatigue, erectile dysfunction, low sex drive, infertility, obesity, anxiety, depression, bloating, headaches, blurred vision, loss of bone density or reduced hormone production from the pituitary gland, which can be detected by a thyroid test.

They also recommended testing to anyone going through chemotherapy or radiation, as well as men with type 1 or type 2 diabetes or other concerns like chronic stress, thyroid disorder or kidney or liver disease, according to the website.

Wellness

LetsGetChecked wellness tests range from $69 to $149 and cover a broad spectrum of health concerns, including:

  • Colon cancer
  • Diabetes
  • Cholesterol
  • Heart health
  • Cortisol
  • Kidney function
  • Liver function
  • Thyroid health
  • Lyme disease
  • Celiac disease
  • Micronutrient deficiencies
  • Mineral levels, including magnesium, selenium, copper and zinc

For those whose cholesterol level indicates they may need treatment, the company offers a Cholesterol CarePathway for $39 per month, which includes medication, regular testing, ongoing guidance by a nurse team and helpful lifestyle resources.

Coronavirus

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted emergency use authorization for LetsGetChecked’s coronavirus test. According to the company, samples are analyzed in its lab using RT-PCR/TMA to confirm the presence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), “RT-PCR (Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction) relies on its ability to amplify a tiny amount of viral genetic material in a trial and is the gold standard for identification of SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

The NIH also says TMA testing (Transcription-Mediated Amplification) which amplifies specific regions of either RNA or DNA from the virus is a reliable detection method .

The test costs $119, and results are available within 24 to 72 hours once arriving at the laboratory. You’ll receive an official lab report in your LetsGetChecked account dashboard, and you can speak with the company’s health experts at any time.

Order a test at least five days before a flight if you need proof of a negative result before you plan to travel.

At-Home Covid-19 Test

Fast and convenient, with shipping included. Your trial is analyzed in a lab using gold standard RT-PCR/TMA. LetsGetChecked aims to deliver online results within 24-72 hours of receiving your sample. Suitable for ages 2+. Get 40% off your LetsGetChecked covid test with code FORBES40.

Request Your Kit
Thu, 04 Aug 2022 02:05:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://www.forbes.com/health/body/letsgetchecked/
Killexams : Rinker achieves board certification in advanced diabetes management

Tue, 02 Aug 2022 16:00:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.themountaineer.com/briefs/rinker-achieves-board-certification-in-advanced-diabetes-management/article_73568e7c-1036-11ed-89fa-0340ad444a88.html Killexams : Pocket Prep Now Offering Free Study Prep for Early Career Certifications

Mobile test prep company Pocket Prep is now offering free study prep for range of early-career and essential worker certifications.

SEATTLE, August 5, 2022 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- Mobile test prep company Pocket Prep today announces the launch of new study material for a range of early-career and essential worker certifications with its Essentials Pocket Prep app. The certifications within Essentials are most commonly taken by people who are just about to finalize their schooling and are preparing to enter a new career field.

The app is free of charge and provides over 6,300 test practice questions for career certifications spanning food and beverage safety, educator academic skills assessment, military training aptitude test, and much more.

Pocket Prep made a conscious decision in 2020 to begin building giveback initiatives to further support its mission of making education more accessible and affordable. In 2020, the company launched a bi-annual racial equity scholarship program and in 2021 a Financial Support Program. Providing free study material to an audience of early career and essential workers is the next iteration of how the company is giving back.

"Regardless of one's ultimate career goals, building a strong educational foundation can take you far in life," said Peter Murphy, CEO and Co-founder of Pocket Prep. "With the launch of Essentials, we are furthering our mission to make education more accessible and affordable for all by helping people launch a new chapter in their careers. Our hope is to make the certification study process a little less stressful and provide people more autonomy and opportunity in dictating their career path."

Study prep for the following certification exams are featured in Essentials Pocket Prep:

  • ACT® – American College Testing

  • ASVAB – Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

  • CBEST® – California Basic Educational Skills Test™

  • FTCE – Florida Teacher Certification Examinations

  • GACE® – Georgia Assessments for the Certification of Educators®

  • GED® – General Educational Development

  • HiSET® – High School Equivalency Test

  • Praxis® Core Academic Skills for Educators

  • SAT® – Scholastic Aptitude Test

  • ServSafe Essentials

Users studying for their test can rest assured that the study material is always up to date. As the nature of examinations means regular content and version changes, Pocket Prep will always make content updates as test standards change.

Essentials Pocket Prep is free to get and free to access all features. It is available via app from the App Store and Google Play Store, as well as online at study.pocketprep.com. Pocket Prep has been providing study prep for a range of professionals for over a decade and averages a 4.8-star or above App Store rating on all of its test prep apps.

About Pocket Prep
Pocket Prep has led the mobile test prep category with its portable learning, smart feedback, and affordable programs since 2011. The company is dedicated to providing the most effective, convenient, and engaging test prep for more than 130 standardized exams spanning the medical, nursing, business, IT, social work, finance, automotive and fitness industries. The company is headquartered in Seattle, WA, with an office in Durham, NC.

Media Contact
press@pocketprep.com

Media Contact

April Stratemeyer, Pocket Prep, 9848841400, april@pocketprep.com

SOURCE Pocket Prep

Fri, 05 Aug 2022 00:11:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pocket-prep-now-offering-free-121000124.html
Killexams : Stephen Carter Makes the Case for Barring the Bar Exam

In a latest article in Bloomberg, prominent columnist and Yale Law School Professor Stephen Carter makes the case for abolishing the the bar test as a requirement for admission to the legal profession. As he points out, the arguments usually advanced for abolishing the LSAT as a requirement for admission to law school also apply to requiring passing the bar test as a precondition for entering the legal profession:

Should law school applicants still have to take the LSAT? A proposal by a committee of the American Bar Association would eliminate the longstanding rule that accredited law schools must require prospective students to take a "valid and reliable test" as part of the application process. If the LSAT is axed, maybe the bar test should be next.

The recommendation to eliminate the admissions testing requirement comes amidst cascading charges that reliance on the Law School Admission Test hurts minority applicants. The proposition is sharply contested by many friends of diversity….  Some find it stigmatizing to be told they can't do as well on the test as White applicants. But given that the case against the test appears to have persuaded the wordily named Council of the ABA's Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, let's assume for the sake of argument that the LSAT does indeed represent an unfair barrier to entry to the legal profession.

Why doesn't the same argument apply to the bar examination?

I'm serious.

Except in Wisconsin, nobody can practice law without passing the bar examination. Some states — California is the most prominent — require even lawyers who are licensed elsewhere to pass an examination if they want to move into the jurisdiction. Such rules function as classic barriers to entry, easily manipulated to keep the supply of lawyers low.

Moreover, the ABA admits that minority bar examination passage rates continue to lag. A 2021 study found that a rising percentage of non-White students at a law school is correlated with a reduction in the school's bar passage rate. Hmmm. If the LSAT is a problem because of its supposed effect on diversity, maybe the bar examination should join it in the waste bin. Or the test could be optional, leaving employers to decide whether they want to require it.

The barrier to entry, even minority entry, might be justified if we could point to the vital public purpose the bar examination serves. That's harder than one might suppose….

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against standardized testing in every circumstance. For example, I'd support a plan under which the bar authorities would follow the medical profession in requiring a certification process before members can market themselves as specialists in particular fields. But there's no persuasive justification for forcing graduates of accredited law schools to jump through yet another hoop before they're allowed to practice their trade.

I've been on the anti-bar test bandwagon for many years now. I first made the case for abolition back in 2009, along with a "modest proposal" for reform in case abolition turns out to be politically infeasible. I am pleased to welcome Prof. Carter to the small, but hopefully growing, Bar the Bar test movement! His eloquence and stature in the legal world might enable him to  win more people over to the cause than I ever could.

He is absolutely right that the case against the LSAT also applies to bar exams. Carter is also right to point out that if bar test passage had real value in predicting a lawyer's competence, employers could just adopt the requirement voluntarily. I made a similar argument back in 2010. Indeed, abolition of the bar test requirement could incentivize both bar associations and other groups to create voluntary certification systems that measure lawyer quality much better than current bar exams do (the latter are mostly just tests of memorization).

The comparison with the LSAT actually understates the case for bar test abolition. I don't have a strong view on whether the LSAT should be retained. But it does serve one useful function that bar exams do not. The LSAT gives law school admissions offices a common metric for evaluating applicants from hundreds of different undergraduate institutions, with widely divergent majors. It's hard to say whether an applicant who graduated with a 3.5 GPA from as a physics major form Podunk University really has comparable credentials to a person who got the same GPA as a political science major from Big State U. But if they both the same LSAT score, that makes it more likely their abilities are similar.

The LSAT might also make it easier for graduates of lesser-known institutions to compete with those who attended the Ivy League or other similar elite schools. If a Podunk grad got a higher LSAT score than a Harvard grad, that might be a good reason to pick the latter over the former, even if you normally would assign less weight to a Podunk degree than a Harvard one. Absent standardized testing, admissions officers will more often fall back on using school prestige as a proxy for applicant quality. That may be appealing if you're an elite college graduate (like me!). But not so much if you want to provide more opportunity to people who didn't attend such institutions - in some cases simply because they didn't fully mature and start working hard on academics until after high school.

None of this necessarily proves that law schools should retain the LSAT as an admissions requirement. It's possible that admissions offices should instead find better ways to assess applicants' undergraduate credentials, ones that rely less on crude proxies. Even if a standardized test of some kind should be used, the LSAT may not be the right one.

But these kinds of issues do provide potential rationales for the LSAT that do not apply to bar exams. Few if any legal employers use bar test scores as a proxy for quality. Indeed, most states don't even make the scores available to test takers. If there are employers who believe that passing a memorization test really is a valuable credential, they have lots of other options, including just creating a simpler and easier to take memorization test of their own.

If employers want to ensure that  the lawyer they hire reaches some minimal threshold of intellectual ability or conscientiousness, that should be readily evident from their law school grades and other previous academic record. The bar test adds little, if anything, to these credentials.

And, as I have pointed out before, the bar test is not a good indicator of the test taker's competence in handling legal issues. Most of the thousands of petty rules tested are ones most lawyers never actually use when they practice law. Indeed, the vast majority of current practicing lawyers - including those at the very pinnacle of the profession - probably couldn't pass their state's bar test again if they had to take it without studying. If the test really did test knowledge that is essential for every lawyer to know, that would be a terrible scandal. But virtually everyone in the profession knows it doesn't. Instead, it's primarily a barrier to entry into the profession, keeping out people who are bad at memorization, or unable to take the time and effort to memorize many thousands of petty rules that you can then forget soon after taking the exam.

In sum, I hope more people with join Stephen Carter and myself in advocating abolition of the bar exam. But, if you're still not convinced, perhaps you might consider my "modest proposal" for reform:

Members of bar test boards… and presidents and other high officials of state bar associations should be required to take and pass the bar test every year by getting the same passing score that they require of ordinary test takers. Any who fail to pass should be immediately dismissed from their positions, and their failure publicly announced…. And they should be barred from ever holding those positions again until - you guessed it - they take and pass the exam.

After all, if the bar test covers material that any practicing lawyer should know, then surely the lawyers who lead the state bar and administer the bar test system itself should be required to know it. If they don't, how can they possibly be qualified for the offices they hold? Surely it's no excuse to say that they knew it back when they themselves took the test, but have since forgotten. How could any client rely on a lawyer who is ignorant of basic professional knowledge, even if he may have known it years ago?

Of course, few if any bar test officials or state bar leaders could pass the bar test without extensive additional study (some might fail even with it). That's because, as anyone who has taken a bar test knows, they test knowledge of thousands of arcane legal rules that only a tiny minority of practicing lawyers ever use. This material isn't on the test because you can't be a competent lawyer if you don't know it. It's there so as to make it more difficult to pass, thereby diminishing competition for current bar association members…. Effectively, bar exams screen out potential lawyers who are bad at memorization or who don't have the time and money to take a bar prep course or spend weeks on test preparation.

My proposed reform wouldn't fully solve this problem. But it could greatly diminish it. If bar test board members and bar association leaders were required to take and pass the test every year, they would have strong incentives to reduce the amount of petty trivia that is tested. After all, anything they include on the test is something they themselves will have to memorize! As prominent practicing lawyers, however, they presumably are already familiar with those laws that are so basic that any attorney has to know them; by limiting the test to those rules, they can minimize their own preparation time. In this way, the material tested on bar exams might be limited to the relatively narrow range of legal rules that the average practicing lawyer really does need to know.

Wed, 13 Jul 2022 16:04:00 -0500 Ilya Somin en-US text/html https://reason.com/volokh/2022/07/13/stephen-carter-makes-the-case-for-barring-the-bar-exam/
Killexams : SBU grads pass certification test with distinction

ST. BONAVENTURE, N.Y. — Katie Heitzman and Claire Schaef didn’t just pass the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology certification exam. They did so with distinction.

Heitzman and Schaef, who graduated from St. Bonaventure University in May with degrees in biochemistry, were among only 12% of graduating seniors nationwide who passed the ASBMB test with distinction, meaning they attained scores of “proficient or above” on 10 of the 11 test questions.

Overall, only 43% of the 1,052 students passed the test to achieve certification (“proficient or above” on at least eight questions).

“Compared to the national average of below 50% for ASBMB certification, this is strong evidence for the preparedness that our biochemistry program provides for our students,” said Dr. Xiaoning Zhang, biology professor and director of the biochemistry program.

“I’m very proud of Katie and Claire. They worked hard and persevered, especially during the pandemic. These are invaluable traits that the workforce is looking for.”

The certificate test has been offered to graduating biochemistry seniors at St. Bonaventure every year since 2018, when SBU’s program earned ASBMB accreditation. Since then, about 90% of SBU’s students who took the test achieved certification, almost all with distinction, Zhang said.

The certification test is designed to test students’ knowledge and understanding of the core competencies in biochemistry and molecular biology developed by the ASBMB and its members. Questions have been structured to assess these concept areas at different levels of cognitive skills and abilities.

Wed, 03 Aug 2022 00:00:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.bradfordera.com/news/sbu-grads-pass-certification-exam-with-distinction/article_ad4f859c-f55d-59e1-a416-1c6b694ef023.html
ISEE exam dump and training guide direct download
Training Exams List