Boards Boot Camp

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved] Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
The response received on 09/26/2014 regarding Case ID #: [redacted]
is disingenuous, seeks to distort the facts of the original complaint,
unprofessional, and most certainty unbecoming of the so-called “physicians”
whom supposedly run Boards Boot Camp.
“Complainant asserts that he did not receive a
high level of customer service, and implies that adequate service was not
rendered. However, below is a list (supported by attached
documentation) of the personal communications with the complainant. You will
find that the customer was always responded to quickly, was dealt with
professionally, and was afforded free services and help. The level of customer
service was timely, supportive, and highly geared towards providing exemplary
support to the customer. ”
Part of my initial complaint has to do with poor customer service
on behalf of BBC. It is nice that BBC can produce evidence of e-mails they sent
to me, however this has absolutely nothing to do with the actual complaint… I
am not complaining of the time or ability of BBC to respond, I am complaining
of the lack of substance within their responses. Listed below is an attempt by
BBC to distort the core issues by relentlessly listing numerous irrelevant
e-mail threads…
            “March 22, 2014 – customer was emailed a welcome email explaining how to use
the course, the best way to make use of the materials, and the deadlines for
access to the multiple online services (namely 6 months for the online
services, and 6 weeks for the pre-course diagnostic exam) . ”
Irrelevant to initial complaint
    “March 24, 2014 – customer was emailed [redacted]
tracking number to be able to track his course package”
Irrelevant to initial complaint
    “April 7, 2014 –customer was called to ascertain how studies were going, satisfaction
with the program, and whether any assistance was required”
Irrelevant to initial complaint
    “April 10, 2104 – customer requested that his online services be activated on
April 10”
Irrelevant to initial complaint
           
“April 10, 2014 – customer was emailed his login credentials for his online
services, specifically on the date he requested that they be activated, which
happened to be the same date he notified us (which is faster than promised
turnaround) ”
Irrelevant to initial complaint
           
“April 14, 2014 – customer was emailed a reminder to activate and take his
pre-course diagnostic exams, which he had not done yet – and reminded that
there was a 6 week from date-of-registration window in which those had to be taken”
Irrelevant to initial complaint
           
“April 14, 2014 – customer responded to reminder of 4/14, requesting that they
be activated immediately”
Irrelevant to initial complaint
           
“April 14, 2014 – customer was emailed login credentials for pre-course
diagnostic exams, on the date he requested and on the same day he requested it
(again, providing faster than promised turnaround) ”
Irrelevant to initial complaint
           
“April 15, 2014 – customer was called as a courtesy to see how the program was
going for him, how studies were proceeding, and to remind him that he had full
use of faculty support, if he wished”
Irrelevant to initial complaint
           
“April 16, 2014 – customer was sent a detailed email, with recommendations to
follow the study plan, to focus on becoming proficient at diagnosis via the
studies, and that re-review is built automatically into the program; customer
was also reminded that BBC is always here to help, and to let us know if there
was anything with which BBC could be of assistance. ”
Irrelevant to initial complaint
           
“April 16, 2014 – customer was emailed that there were would be a server
upgrade on 4-17-2014, potentially interrupting access on the morning of that
day”
Irrelevant to initial complaint
           
“April 21, 2014 – customer was emailed another reminder that the pre-course
diagnostic exams were set to expire within 6 weeks of his course registration
date, and that it was important to take them as soon as possible (and before starting
studies) ”
Irrelevant to initial complaint
           
“April 24, 2014 – customer emailed BBC, requesting that he be given an
extension to end of May, when he had time off, to take the pre-course
diagnostic exam (it was going to expire on 5-3-2014, per the course
specifications and per what he paid for with the course) ”
This marks the first of many instances
where BBC was both rude and unhelpful... As per the e-mail I sent on 04/24/2014,
I asked to begin my studies with BBC at the end of May 2014 (as that is when I
had time set aside to study for the COMLEX examination) . A request of this
nature should not have been an issue; I have had similar arrangements with
other board preparation companies in the past... Nevertheless, BBC took great
issue with this request, and sent me an e-mail that was demining, threating,
and unprofessional (please see BBC e-mail response dated 05/27/2014 from staff
member “Clark”) .
           
April 24, 2014 – customer was emailed, explaining that these are designed to be
done prior to studies, and to be done while working (e. g. , do not need to take
time off to do them; most of our clientele are in school/undergoing in-hospital
training at the time they take it) . However, in concession to his request, BBC
provided an extra week, giving him a free one week extension until 5-10-2014,
during which time he could take them. It was also noted that, if he still
needed more time beyond that extension, then to please respond to the next
diagnostic exam reminder he was going to be sent and let us know, wherein BBC
would see what could be done for him, although these are designed to be taken
while in medical school/in in-hospital training (customer NEVER responded to
this email, or the subsequent reminder in a timely manner)
After having to literally fight with
BBC to get the extension, the Pre-Course diagnostic exams were taken on time.
Therefore, no response was necessary on my part, as I in fact did what I said I
was going to do in the prior e-mail.
           
April 28, 2014 – customer was emailed a notice that his pre-course diagnostic
exams were originally going to expire on May 3, 2014, but again confirmed his
free extension to 5/10/2014, and that this would be his last reminder to take
them before they expire.
Irrelevant to initial complaint
           
April 28, 2014 – customer emailed BBC, requesting an invoice (e. g. , receipt)
for the course be emailed to him, so he would have proof for his school that he
is enrolled.
Irrelevant to initial complaint
           
April 28, 2014 – customer was emailed the receipt.
•  
Pre-Course Diagnostic Exam eligibility expired on
May 10 (the extension date provided to him) ; student never responded to the
extension we granted up to this date, nor the suggestion to write after his
last reminder to request more time, if more time was going to be needed)
Again, after having to fight for the
extension, the Pre-Course diagnostic exams were taken on time.
    May 27, 2014 – Customer writes, apologizing for
not having written sooner; he requested that he be able to have the pre-course
dx exams availed on May 30-June 1, “if at all possible. ” (which requires that
we re-enter him into that system and set-up/re-establish the account again for
him, complete with establishing bandwidth access (at cost to the company for
something already availed to him) , despite multiple previous emails sent about
expiration and even an extension provided) .
The fact that it was such a “struggle”
for BBC to “re-enter” me in the system and use up their “bandwidth” only goes to
show what type of hack-job operation BBC runs. Again, as stated before, after
having to fight for the extension, the Pre-Course diagnostic exams were taken
on time. This instance alone demonstrates how BBC really will not put in any
extra effort for it customers. BBC deliberately makes it seem like it is such a
difficult task to actually help anyone out.
    May 27, 2014 – customer was emailed, noting that
he had been sent expiration notices on April 14, April 21, and April 28, and
that he was also afforded an extension to May 10, 2014. BBC also noted that,
because he did not request any further extension, by default, the account
terminated. He was informed that, had he contacted BBC prior to its expiry, we
would have been happy to work with him to find a schedule amenable to his
needs. However, he waited until the account no longer exists, and requested an
extension to a then non-existent account. We encouraged him to do the course
itself, as the pre-course diagnostic exam only gave a measure of status prior
to the course. We asked that he contact us if he has questions, or if we can be
of further assistance
Refer to above comments…
    May 28, 2014 – customer writes to tell us that
the expiration of his account is “unacceptable” (although he was well aware of the
expiry date, and also given an extension) , and that it is “not always easy to
remember to send specific emails at specific times for things that should not
really be an issue in the first place” (however, this student was sent a
welcome email stating the deadline, was then sent three separate reminders of
the upcoming expiration, and was also sent an email stating that we had availed
him an extension – all he needed to do was take the exam, something that our
other customers (all of whom are medical students or resident physicians)
managed to do, except for him) .   He noted that no other boards prep firms
abide by deadlines, implying they do not apply to his unique situation of being
a medical student.
Again, BBC only “attacks” it's
students and paying customers. BBC will not put in any extra effort without
complaining. This clearly demonstrates the ever-lengthening trend of BBC’s
significantly below industry standard customer service. BBC has absolutely no
idea how their board preparation competition seems to work. BBC and its
“physician administrations” are entirely out of touch with reality, and most
certainty doesn’t understand the commitments of third-year medical students
(although they claim to on their website) .   
    May 28, 2014 – customer was emailed personally by
BBC Executive Director, and President of the parent corporation. He was
apprised that all service companies, including boards prep firms, have specific
limits to use of the services; that is why deadlines exist, with all service
firms. He also was reminded that he was apprised on 4 different occasions of
what the upcoming expiry date was, and was given an extension, and would have
been given more of an extension, free of charge, had he responded to our last
deadline warning email or to the email offering him the extension. He was
reminded that he never made contact with us in response to the extension
provision and offering, and that that particular course component therefore
expired and that account no longer existed. Nevertheless, we shared our
interest in and commitment to his boards success (the boards exams are what we
prepare medical students for) , and so BBC offered to take on the cost of
establishing a new account for him, setting it up, and availing it again to
him.
•  
BBC then established a new pre-course diagnostic
exam account for the customer, doing so free of charge with no cost to customer
(with company absorbing costs for this)
There should be no “cost” for giving
someone on-line access to a system. It should be no more difficult than
entering a person’s name and e-mail address. BBC again shows how absolutely out
of touch with reality they are. It should be clear by now that BBC does not
make an effort to help its customers without complaining, as well as significantly
exaggerating what they have to do to make their feeble attempt to “help. ”  
   May 28, 2014 – customer emailed back, explaining
that he understands that once a course expires, it needs to be re-purchased
[note to Revdex.com: his course had not expired – the course has multiple parts; one
part of his course expired) . However, his response to the question about what
we could have done better, considering that he had ignored the 4 expiry
notifications/advance warnings was that “beyond the reminder e-mails, my
response is simply to have just restored the access to that portion of the
course, ” failing to acknowledge that it is he who allowed it to expire, despite
our many attempts to warn the customer of its impending expiry (and our
provision of an extension, too) – all things he acknowledges.
Again, as per common sense (something
that BBC and its “physicians” lack) , and more importantly industry standards,
the Pre-Course Diagnostic Exams should never have expired during the six-month
time period for which I PAID IN FULL. This above statement from BBC is
worthless…
   May 29, 2014 – customer was sent login credentials for the diagnostic exams
Irrelevant to initial complaint
           
July 21, 2014 – customer failed the BBC assessment exam, a statistical tool
used to predict boards pass fail outcomes; was sent an email helping him
interpret the results, along with suggestions to postpone the boards exam but
to please write back, so we can work with him to provide customized studies and
other remedies to the situation
           
July 22, 2014 – customer responded to the 7/21 email, stating that he took an
additional assessment exam (from the [redacted] ) , and acknowledged that his
performance on that was also weak; nevertheless, he indicated that he felt it
was in his best interest to take boards as scheduled anyway (despite predictors
to the contrary of success) . He also requested that he have a full detail of
his BBC assessment exam performance emailed to him.
BBC’s assessment exam was SIMPLY
WRONG. It is a statistically WORTHLESS tool. Per my passing results on the
actual exam, I have in fact clearly proved this point. The fact of the matter
is that BBC using their “advanced” statistics, more or less bet that I would
fail the real exam. Now that I have passed the actual exam, and showed that
their assessment was NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT, BBC is doing whatever it possibly
can so as not to look like the is they actually are...
Being skeptical of their Post-Course
Diagnostic Exam, I utilized the [redacted] ’s COMSAE exam (an assessment tool make by
the test makers themselves) to verify BBC’s exam results. Having passed the
[redacted] ’s exam, and not having an option to just “take more time off” (something
that no third-year medical student can just randomly decide to do – and something
that a board preparation course run by responsible “physicians” should have
knowledge of to begin with) I took the exam and passed. If I had listened to
the advice of BBC, I would have seriously jeopardized my future medical career
(see e-mail dated 09/04/2014, to which BBC entirely ignored) .            
           
July 22, 2014 – customer was emailed by a faculty member, writing in response
to his July 21 email, offering assistance and academic support, as well as
suggesting alternate ways to get more time, as was needed, to study prior to
boards; customer never responded
Response was not necessary, as I
already informed BBC of my plans in a prior e-mail. Also, the e-mail sent to me
was so excessively negative (in terms of its total lack of confidence in my
abilities) , I wasn’t going to waste my time to e-mail these uniformed iss.
It would have been a crucial waste of precious study time to dedicate more
resources to their failing approach to the COMLEX exam and general ignorance.
            July 22, 2014 – per his request, customer was sent a detailed breakdown of
assessment exam results
Irrelevant to initial complaint
           
September 4, 2014 – customer emailed BBC to thank one of its faculty members
for the time put into assistance rendered to him, but to also complain that his
experience with BBC was dissatisfying. More specifically, he complained that he
took the exam [boards] as he had originally planned (although we advised that
he postpone to study more, studies that we would personally guide him through) ,
and that he did in fact pass, but was not pleased with the score (although we
advised that he had a high chance of failing, or getting a very low score, if
he did not afford himself a little more time to prepare) . He then went on to
imply that the stress the assessment exam created for him contributed to his
unsatisfying boards exam result (The statistical likelihood for a failed
outcome was high,  with the customer demonstrating a & gt;50% chance of
failing – but he passed, albeit with a low score; he also scored poorly on
a non-BBC third party assessment exam, too) .    In the same email, he
asks for a refund, and then writes “to your credit, while doing the course, I
did feel like I was learning, and felt like I was becoming a more knowledgeable
future physician. Unfortunately, the ends do justify the means, and it is now
clear the BBC was not the means to excel on the COMLEX. ” (Student acknowledges
he learned a lot, acknowledges he used the resources, and acknowledges he did
not follow our advice – and yet complains that he did not get the score he
wanted) .
•  
Also relevant is that the customer did not
exactly follow or complete the program; documentation of his online activity
can be provided, if this comes into question. He completed only 2/3 of the
course, as designed, and then did studies out of order, without regard to
program requirements. Hence, the complaint also is filed in the face of a
situation in which the student was not following the program to completion as
designed, and using program resources randomly after the first 2/3 were
finished.
To say my experience with BBC is
“dissatisfying” is an understatement. As I stated before, I completed the
program in time, and there was no possible way to “set aside more time” for extra
study. Again, third-year medical students cannot just stop their rotations and
add extra time to study whenever they feel like it. BBC should know this, but
clearly this is a concept they have a difficult time understanding... The
e-mail response that I received from BBC was designed to intimidate, alluding
to the fact that BBC was “absolutely positive” I would fail the actual exam.
The e-mail they sent even apologizes for not wanting to “sound negative. ”  As such, an e-mail of this nature would cause
excessive and undue stress to any individual (most especially an individual
about to take a major exam) . Now, not wanting to engage in the excess
negativity perpetuated by BBC, I did not see it fit to e-mail them again at
this point. Instead, I decided to finish the course with the knowledge that I
did in fact pass the test-makers ( [redacted] ) assessment.
I did in fact feel like I was learning
material throughout my BBC studies, the only problem is that BBC course was not
teaching the material correctly. This statement is verified based on the mere
fact that I failed their diagnostic test, yet I passed the [redacted] diagnostic
test as well as the actual exam (marginally) , this being with knowledge I
accumulated in my past studies and rotations. Clearly, BBC methods make the
student feel that he or she is learning, but does not provide tangible results
when it matters most.
The course was completed fully, the
insinuation that only 2/3 of the course was completed is an utterly
disingenuous statement. Even more interesting is the fact that Lori D [redacted]
even states in one of her training videos that the “third part of the course is
the icing on the cake, ” (although there really is no “cake” to begin with) .
This same information is present in the printed materials as well; BBC states
that after Part II, the course is “complete. ” Nevertheless, I did in fact
complete the third part of the course as well… Another issue with BBC that may
be relevant is the fact that they only allow students access to training videos
on two separate occasions. This is another aspect of BBC’s operations that fall
below industry standards. No other “board preparation” company restricts the
number of times a training video can be viewed, as this is not in the student’s
best interest. Again, this only adds to the already strong case that BBC does
not put forth a genuine effort to do everything in the interest of the student
(at least without complaining or over exaggerating) .
Complainant asserts that he used the BBC
“methods, ” and implies the method is flawed:
1.       Customer did not
complete the program, and did not follow the last 1/3 of the study plan
2.        Customer
did not follow the recommendations that he postpone (or suggestions for
alternative ways to gain more study time) , recommendations provided in
consideration of his failure of the assessment exam, an exam that predicted a
>50% chance of failing the boards exam
3.        Customer
did not respond to phone calls and emails made and sent over several months,
offering academic support or guidance
As stated above, this is a blatant
distortion of the truth on the part of BBC. All parts of the course were
completed. See statements above regarding Lori D [redacted] ’s video saying course
was “complete” after 2/3 done. However, in my case, I did in fact complete all
BBC assignments, including the “optional” last 1/3 of the course.
Clearly BBC assessment exam was wrong
since I ended up marginally passing the actual exam. BBC has no creditable data
to backup their falsified “statistics. ” The Post-Course Diagnostic Exam is
SIMPLY STATISTICALLY NON-SIGNIFICANT.
No phone calls were received, and I
chose not to engage the negativity brought upon me by BBC in their 07/22/2014
e-mail. BBC never responded to my last e-mail on 09/04/2014 (this is clear from
their lack of a response, seen in BBC’s complaint attachments) , which directly
led me to opening my case with the Revdex.com.
Complainant asserts that BBC gave him “terrible”
advice, referring to the fact that we advised that he postpone boards since he
clearly was not ready (he had not finished the program, AND took an
assessment exam that predicted a & gt;50% chance of failure; he also had a weak
result on a third-party assessment exam before boards) . First, since the advice
was not followed, how can customer complain about the advice, as no harm came
from the advice he labels as “terrible”? He simply ignored our recommendations.
Secondly, instead of failing (for which there was a & gt;50% chance) , the
student did pass, albeit with a low score. So, the customer did better than was
expected, and for that he wants a refund? Had the customer followed our
so-called “terrible” advice, his chances for a higher score would have been
greater – he was not ready, both because he did not do the program to completion,
and because he was demonstrating inadequate academic achievement at the time of
his intended boards date (probably due to not having finished the program as
designed) . We advised that he allow himself more time to study.
The only advice that was not followed
was the advice not to take the exam. Had I followed this advice, I would have
damaged my future professional goals even more so than using the BBC course to
begin with. Again, as stated multiple times now, third-year medical students
cannot just stop rotations because BBC thinks they should. Having done so would
have led to me being “off-schedule” for my fourth-year rotations, would have
delayed my graduation, my residency applications, and my future as a physician
(all of which are intact because I followed the results of the [redacted] test, not
BBC’s test) . I do not understand why this is such a difficult concept for BBC
to understand? For a company that is supposedly run by “physicians” (who more
than likely don’t even practice medicine) , they should at the very least
understand how a medical school curriculum works in the United States.
If I had reached the exam mean, this
complaint would not even exist. I paid a lot of money for a program that was
suppose to put me far above the mean, which it didn’t even get me to.
Again, the program was completed; the
problem is that BBC’s materials and methods are substandard.
Customer complains that he did not attain the
advertised mean. A mean is an average, meaning that an average
of all scores submitted or obtained is generated. Naturally, some students are
above the mean, and some are below. While we are saddened he was unable to
generate his personally desired score, he should have finished the program as
designed as well as postponed as BBC suggested; nevertheless, a mean is an
average, and does not imply a minimum score to be had.
The student was provided the program, was
provided all components to the program, was provided extension to one of the
services (free of charge) , was provided a new account since he allowed the one
that comes with his course to expire (the new account was given free of
charge) , was afforded fast, helpful, professional customer support at each
junction wherein he was always treated with respect and concern, was contacted
personally by the company Executive Director and President when indicating
initial dissatisfaction with the fact that there are deadlines to the services,
was contacted by BBC Account Executives several times during the program as
part of our standard of care for customers, wherein BBC calls or writes every
so often to make sure studies are going well and to make sure the customer’s
needs are being met, and was contacted by company faculty in an attempt to
reach out to provide academic support; in addition, the customer acknowledged
he learned a lot from the program, and thanked BBC faculty and staff for the
service provided at various times. Boards Boot Camp met, and surpassed, its
obligation to this student. We are saddened that he is unable to see that we
were concerned about his welfare throughout the entire process, and that he was
fully provided the product and service he purchased. As such, he is not due a
refund.
Finally, it is most unfortunate that the student
had difficulty reaching academic superiority as he had desired. Again, had the
course been followed, as designed, to completion, the chances of doing better
would have been greater; likewise, allowing himself more time to study, as was
advised, would have afforded the student an opportunity to complete the program
as designed. Nevertheless, in a sincere effort to reach out to this student in
concession for his dissatisfaction, as well as to impart services that will be
of value for future boards exams (medical students and physicians must take various
ones throughout their career) , we are in a position to offer the student
non-course assistance in the form of personalized one-on-one mentoring, via
email, to cover ways to optimize study skills and maximize question execution
skills, two particular areas that can especially helpful to any student
regardless of their status academically. Such help is normally billable at
$150/hour, since it is provided by a physician/physician educator. We are
prepared to provide support for the aforementioned question execution skills
and study skills, and to provide that on a complimentary basis (up to a value
of $150, and limited only to those services noted herein) ; if the customer is
accepting of this offer on or before 9/30/2014 to satisfy his reported complaint/dissatisfaction,
we will gladly move forward in that regard to provide said services prior to
10/31/2014.  
If you have any questions, or need further detail
or documentation beyond that included herein, please do not hesitate to contact
us.
AT THE VERY LEAST, BBC’s program
should be able to bring a student to the mean of the exam in which they claim
to prepare that student for. The course was completed in its entirety, and a
substandard score was achieved using BBC’s materials and methods. BBC
advertises scores well above the mean on their website. As such, wanting a
refund for not obtaining at least a basic mean score is perfectly fair.
The fact that BBC wants to offer a
“one-on-one mentoring” is a metaphorical “slap in the face. ” Have you not
already done enough damage at this point in time? Your methods are absolute
garbage, and you people clearly have no idea what the hell is going on. Why in
the world would I want mentoring from people who helped me to obtain a
substandard score (which will now damage my chances for specific residency
positions) ? Do you people even know that the exam can only be taken one time? The
offer alone is really just pouring “salt on the wound, ” and as “physicians” you
should be disgusted with yourselves. I sincerely feel as if BBC is taking
advantage of me. I am just trying to get my medical education and do the best I
possibly can. BBC was an expensive course for me to utilize as I am already
accumulating student loans. I expect to be refunded the full amount for the
time I wasted using BBC’s product.
Lastly, in addition to the complaint
filed with the Revdex.com on 09/21/2014, a complaint has also been
filed with the Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania on 09/21/2014.

Review: I am filing a complaint against Boards Boot Camp (BBC) due to my dissatisfaction with both their customer service and board preparation products. I choose to use BBC as I prepared for the COMLEX Level II series exam (administered by the [redacted]) this past August. I enrolled in the BBC course on May 22, 2014 to prepare for the exam I took on August 4, 2014 (BBC enrollment provides six months worth of study time). My grievance with BBC is that they advertise above average scores using their methods, as well as exceptional customer service; unfortunately, in my experience with BBC, neither of these claims were met. I was in fact able to pass my exam, but only marginally (most certainly not to the level they advertise, or even to the mean for that matter). Having followed their methods, I expected significantly higher scores (or at least scores reaching the mean). BBC also provided me with terrible advice in regards to my level of preparation to sit for the exam. BBC's diagnostic testing advice turned out to be blatantly inaccurate (and not statistically significant) . Had I followed their advice at the conclusion of my course, I would have put my future professional goals in serious jeopardy (to say the least). At this point in time, I have contacted BBC via e-mail on 09/04/2014 asking for a refund of my purchase price for the course. However, BBC lacks the courtesy to respond to my complaints.Desired Settlement: I would like the amount I paid for my BBC course ($799.00) to either be refunded to my [redacted], or have a check mailed to me.

Business

Response:

MEMO

To: Revdex.com

From: Boards Boot Camp

Date: September 25, 2014

RE: ID #[redacted]

We

write in response to the Complaint filed on 9/21/2014 at 9:57:32 PM, ID #

[redacted].

Complainant asserts that he did not receive a

high level of customer service, and implies that adequate service was not

rendered. However, below is a list (supported by attached documentation) of

the personal communications with the complainant. You will find that the

customer was always responded to quickly, was dealt with professionally, and

was afforded free services and help. The level of customer service was timely,

supportive, and highly geared towards providing exemplary support to the

customer.

March 22, 2014 – customer was

emailed a welcome email explaining how to use the course, the best way to make

use of the materials, and the deadlines for access to the multiple online services

(namely 6 months for the online services, and 6 weeks for the pre-course

diagnostic exam).

March 24, 2014 – customer was emailed [redacted] tracking number to be

able to track his course package

April 7, 2014 –customer was called

to ascertain how studies were going, satisfaction with the program, and whether

any assistance was required

April 10, 2104 – customer requested

that his online services be activated on April 10

April 10, 2014 – customer was

emailed his login credentials for his online services, specifically on the date

he requested that they be activated, which happened to be the same date he

notified us (which is faster than promised turnaround)

April 14, 2014 – customer was

emailed a reminder to activate and take his pre-course diagnostic exams, which

he had not done yet – and reminded that there was a 6 week from

date-of-registration window in which those had to be taken

April 14, 2014 – customer responded

to reminder of 4/14, requesting that they be activated immediately

April 14, 2014 – customer was

emailed login credentials for pre-course diagnostic exams, on the date he

requested and on the same day he requested it (again, providing faster than

promised turnaround)

April 15, 2014 – customer was called

as a courtesy to see how the program was going for him, how studies were

proceeding, and to remind him that he had full use of faculty support, if he

wished

April 16, 2014 – customer was sent a

detailed email, with recommendations to follow the study plan, to focus on

becoming proficient at diagnosis via the studies, and that re-review is built

automatically into the program; customer was also reminded that BBC is always

here to help, and to let us know if there was anything with which BBC could be

of assistance.

April 16, 2014 – customer was

emailed that there were would be a server upgrade on 4-17-2014, potentially

interrupting access on the morning of that day

April 21, 2014 – customer was

emailed another reminder that the pre-course diagnostic exams were set to

expire within 6 weeks of his course registration date, and that it was

important to take them as soon as possible (and before starting studies)

April 24, 2014 – customer emailed

BBC, requesting that he be given an extension to end of May, when he had time

off, to take the pre-course diagnostic exam (it was going to expire on

5-3-2014, per the course specifications and per what he paid for with the course)

April 24, 2014 – customer was

emailed, explaining that these are designed to be done prior to studies, and to

be done while working (e.g., do not need to take time off to do them; most of

our clientele are in school/undergoing in-hospital training at the time they

take it). However, in concession to his request, BBC provided an extra week,

giving him a free one week extension until 5-10-2014, during which time he

could take them. It was also noted that, if he still needed more time beyond

that extension, then to please respond to the next diagnostic exam reminder he

was going to be sent and let us know, wherein BBC would see what could be done

for him, although these are designed to be taken while in medical school/in

in-hospital training (customer NEVER responded to this email, or the subsequent

reminder in a timely manner)

April 28, 2014 – customer was

emailed a notice that his pre-course diagnostic exams were originally going to

expire on May 3, 2014, but again confirmed his free extension to 5/10/2014, and

that this would be his last reminder to take them before they expire.

April 28, 2014 – customer emailed

BBC, requesting an invoice (e.g., receipt) for the course be emailed to him, so

he would have proof for his school that he is enrolled.

April 28, 2014 – customer was

emailed the receipt.

Pre-Course Diagnostic Exam eligibility expired on May 10 (the

extension date provided to him); student never responded to the extension we

granted up to this date, nor the suggestion to write after his last reminder to

request more time, if more time was going to be needed)

May 27, 2014 – Customer writes, apologizing for not having written

sooner; he requested that he be able to have the pre-course dx exams availed on

May 30-June 1, “if at all possible.” (which requires that we re-enter him into

that system and set-up/re-establish the account again for him, complete with

establishing bandwidth access (at cost to the company for something already

availed to him), despite multiple previous emails sent about expiration and

even an extension provided).

May 27, 2014 – customer was emailed, noting that he had been sent

expiration notices on April 14, April 21, and April 28, and that he was also

afforded an extension to May 10, 2014. BBC also noted that, because he did not

request any further extension, by default, the account terminated. He was

informed that, had he contacted BBC prior to its expiry, we would have been

happy to work with him to find a schedule amenable to his needs. However, he

waited until the account no longer exists, and requested an extension to a then

non-existent account. We encouraged him to do the course itself, as the

pre-course diagnostic exam only gave a measure of status prior to the course.

We asked that he contact us if he has questions, or if we can be of further

assistance

May 28, 2014 – customer writes to tell us that the expiration of

his account is “unacceptable” (although he was well aware of the expiry date,

and also given an extension), and that it is “not always easy to remember to

send specific emails at specific times for things that should not really be an

issue in the first place” (however, this student was sent a welcome email

stating the deadline, was then sent three separate reminders of the upcoming

expiration, and was also sent an email stating that we had availed him an

extension – all he needed to do was take the exam, something that our other

customers (all of whom are medical students or resident physicians) managed to

do, except for him). He noted that no

other boards prep firms abide by deadlines, implying they do not apply to his

unique situation of being a medical student.

May 28, 2014 – customer was emailed personally by BBC Executive

Director, and President of the parent corporation. He was apprised that all service

companies, including boards prep firms, have specific limits to use of the

services; that is why deadlines exist, with all service firms. He also was

reminded that he was apprised on 4 different occasions of what the upcoming

expiry date was, and was given an extension, and would have been given more of

an extension, free of charge, had he responded to our last deadline warning

email or to the email offering him the extension. He was reminded that he never

made contact with us in response to the extension provision and offering, and

that that particular course component therefore expired and that account no

longer existed. Nevertheless, we shared our interest in and commitment to his

boards success (the boards exams are what we prepare medical students for), and

so BBC offered to take on the cost of establishing a new account for him,

setting it up, and availing it again to him.

BBC then established a new pre-course diagnostic exam account for

the customer, doing so free of charge with no cost to customer (with company

absorbing costs for this)

May 28, 2014 – customer emailed back, explaining that he

understands that once a course expires, it needs to be re-purchased [note to

Revdex.com: his course had not expired – the course has multiple parts; one part of his

course expired). However, his response to the question about what we could have

done better, considering that he had ignored the 4 expiry notifications/advance

warnings was that “beyond the reminder e-mails, my response is simply to have

just restored the access to that portion of the course,” failing to acknowledge

that it is he who allowed it to expire, despite our many attempts to warn the

customer of its impending expiry (and our provision of an extension, too) – all

things he acknowledges.

May 29, 2014 – customer was sent

login credentials for the diagnostic exams

July 21, 2014 – customer failed the

BBC assessment exam, a statistical tool used to predict boards pass fail

outcomes; was sent an email helping him interpret the results, along with suggestions

to postpone the boards exam but to please write back, so we can work with him

to provide customized studies and other remedies to the situation

July 22, 2014 – customer responded

to the 7/21 email, stating that he took an additional assessment exam (from the

[redacted]), and acknowledged that his performance on that was also weak;

nevertheless, he indicated that he felt it was in his best interest to take

boards as scheduled anyway (despite predictors to the contrary of success). He

also requested that he have a full detail of his BBC assessment exam

performance emailed to him.

July 22, 2014 – customer was emailed

by a faculty member, writing in response to his July 21 email, offering

assistance and academic support, as well as suggesting alternate ways to get

more time, as was needed, to study prior to boards; customer never responded

July 22, 2014 – per his request,

customer was sent a detailed breakdown of assessment exam results

September 4, 2014 – customer emailed

BBC to thank one of its faculty members for the time put into assistance

rendered to him, but to also complain that his experience with BBC was

dissatisfying. More specifically, he complained that he took the exam [boards]

as he had originally planned (although we advised that he postpone to study

more, studies that we would personally guide him through), and that he did in

fact pass, but was not pleased with the score (although we advised that he had

a high chance of failing, or getting a very low score, if he did not afford

himself a little more time to prepare). He then went on to imply that the

stress the assessment exam created for him contributed to his unsatisfying

boards exam result (The statistical likelihood for a failed outcome was

high, with the customer demonstrating a >50% chance of failing – but he

passed, albeit with a low score; he also scored poorly on a non-BBC third

party assessment exam, too). In the

same email, he asks for a refund, and then writes “to your credit, while doing

the course, I did feel like I was learning, and felt like I was becoming a more

knowledgeable future physician. Unfortunately, the ends do justify the means,

and it is now clear the BBC was not the means to excel on the COMLEX.” (Student

acknowledges he learned a lot, acknowledges he used the resources, and

acknowledges he did not follow our advice – and yet complains that he did not

get the score he wanted).

Also relevant is that the customer did not exactly follow or

complete the program; documentation of his online activity can be provided, if

this comes into question. He completed only 2/3 of the course, as designed, and

then did studies out of order, without regard to program requirements. Hence,

the complaint also is filed in the face of a situation in which the student was

not following the program to completion as designed, and using program

resources randomly after the first 2/3 were finished.

Complainant asserts that he used the BBC

“methods,” and implies the method is flawed:

1.

Customer did not complete the program, and did not follow the last

1/3 of the study plan

2.

Customer did not follow the

recommendations that he postpone (or suggestions for alternative ways to gain

more study time), recommendations provided in consideration of his failure of

the assessment exam, an exam that predicted a >50% chance of failing the

boards exam

3. Customer did not respond to phone calls and emails made

and sent over several months, offering academic support or guidance

Complainant asserts that BBC gave him

“terrible” advice, referring to the fact that we advised that he postpone

boards since he clearly was not ready (he had not finished the program, AND took an

assessment exam that predicted a >50% chance of failure; he also had a weak

result on a third-party assessment exam before boards). First, since the advice

was not followed, how can customer complain about the advice, as no harm came

from the advice he labels as “terrible”? He simply ignored our recommendations.

Secondly, instead of failing (for which there was a >50% chance), the

student did pass, albeit with a low score. So, the customer did better than was

expected, and for that he wants a refund? Had the customer followed our

so-called “terrible” advice, his chances for a higher score would have been

greater – he was not ready, both because he did not do the program to

completion, and because he was demonstrating inadequate academic achievement at

the time of his intended boards date (probably due to not having finished the

program as designed). We advised that he allow himself more time to study.

Customer complains that he did not attain the

advertised mean. A mean is an average, meaning that an

average of all scores submitted or obtained is generated. Naturally, some

students are above the mean, and some are below. While we are saddened he was

unable to generate his personally desired score, he should have finished the

program as designed as well as postponed as BBC suggested; nevertheless, a mean

is an average, and does not imply a minimum score to be had.

The

student was provided the program, was provided all components to the program,

was provided extension to one of the services (free of charge), was provided a

new account since he allowed the one that comes with his course to expire (the

new account was given free of charge), was afforded fast, helpful, professional

customer support at each junction wherein he was always treated with respect

and concern, was contacted personally by the company Executive Director and

President when indicating initial dissatisfaction with the fact that there are

deadlines to the services, was contacted by BBC Account Executives several

times during the program as part of our standard of care for customers, wherein

BBC calls or writes every so often to make sure studies are going well and to

make sure the customer’s needs are being met, and was contacted by company

faculty in an attempt to reach out to provide academic support; in addition,

the customer acknowledged he learned a lot from the program, and thanked BBC

faculty and staff for the service provided at various times. Boards Boot Camp

met, and surpassed, its obligation to this student. We are saddened that he is

unable to see that we were concerned about his welfare throughout the entire

process, and that he was fully provided the product and service he purchased.

As such, he is not due a refund.

Finally,

it is most unfortunate that the student had difficulty reaching academic

superiority as he had desired. Again, had the course been followed, as

designed, to completion, the chances of doing better would have been greater;

likewise, allowing himself more time to study, as was advised, would have

afforded the student an opportunity to complete the program as designed.

Nevertheless, in a sincere effort to reach out to this student in concession

for his dissatisfaction, as well as to impart services that will be of value

for future boards exams (medical students and physicians must take various ones

throughout their career), we are in a position to offer the student non-course

assistance in the form of personalized one-on-one mentoring, via email, to

cover ways to optimize study skills and maximize question execution skills, two

particular areas that can especially helpful to any student regardless of their

status academically. Such help is normally billable at $150/hour, since it is

provided by a physician/physician educator. We are prepared to provide support

for the aforementioned question execution skills and study skills, and to

provide that on a complimentary basis (up to a value of $150, and limited only

to those services noted herein); if the customer is accepting of this offer on

or before 9/30/2014 to satisfy his reported complaint/dissatisfaction, we will

gladly move forward in that regard to provide said services prior to

10/31/2014.

If

you have any questions, or need further detail or documentation beyond that

included herein, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

The response received on 09/26/2014 regarding Case ID #: [redacted]

is disingenuous, seeks to distort the facts of the original complaint,

unprofessional, and most certainty unbecoming of the so-called “physicians”

whom supposedly run Boards Boot Camp.

“Complainant asserts that he did not receive a

high level of customer service, and implies that adequate service was not

rendered. However, below is a list (supported by attached

documentation) of the personal communications with the complainant. You will

find that the customer was always responded to quickly, was dealt with

professionally, and was afforded free services and help. The level of customer

service was timely, supportive, and highly geared towards providing exemplary

support to the customer.”

Part of my initial complaint has to do with poor customer service

on behalf of BBC. It is nice that BBC can produce evidence of e-mails they sent

to me, however this has absolutely nothing to do with the actual complaint… I

am not complaining of the time or ability of BBC to respond, I am complaining

of the lack of substance within their responses. Listed below is an attempt by

BBC to distort the core issues by relentlessly listing numerous irrelevant

e-mail threads… “March 22, 2014 – customer was emailed a welcome email explaining how to use

the course, the best way to make use of the materials, and the deadlines for

access to the multiple online services (namely 6 months for the online

services, and 6 weeks for the pre-course diagnostic exam).”

Irrelevant to initial complaint “March 24, 2014 – customer was emailed [redacted]

tracking number to be able to track his course package”

Irrelevant to initial complaint “April 7, 2014 –customer was called to ascertain how studies were going, satisfaction

with the program, and whether any assistance was required”

Irrelevant to initial complaint “April 10, 2104 – customer requested that his online services be activated on

April 10”

Irrelevant to initial complaint

“April 10, 2014 – customer was emailed his login credentials for his online

services, specifically on the date he requested that they be activated, which

happened to be the same date he notified us (which is faster than promised

turnaround)”

Irrelevant to initial complaint

“April 14, 2014 – customer was emailed a reminder to activate and take his

pre-course diagnostic exams, which he had not done yet – and reminded that

there was a 6 week from date-of-registration window in which those had to be taken”

Irrelevant to initial complaint

“April 14, 2014 – customer responded to reminder of 4/14, requesting that they

be activated immediately”

Irrelevant to initial complaint

“April 14, 2014 – customer was emailed login credentials for pre-course

diagnostic exams, on the date he requested and on the same day he requested it

(again, providing faster than promised turnaround)”

Irrelevant to initial complaint

“April 15, 2014 – customer was called as a courtesy to see how the program was

going for him, how studies were proceeding, and to remind him that he had full

use of faculty support, if he wished”

Irrelevant to initial complaint

“April 16, 2014 – customer was sent a detailed email, with recommendations to

follow the study plan, to focus on becoming proficient at diagnosis via the

studies, and that re-review is built automatically into the program; customer

was also reminded that BBC is always here to help, and to let us know if there

was anything with which BBC could be of assistance.”

Irrelevant to initial complaint

“April 16, 2014 – customer was emailed that there were would be a server

upgrade on 4-17-2014, potentially interrupting access on the morning of that

day”

Irrelevant to initial complaint

“April 21, 2014 – customer was emailed another reminder that the pre-course

diagnostic exams were set to expire within 6 weeks of his course registration

date, and that it was important to take them as soon as possible (and before starting

studies)”

Irrelevant to initial complaint

“April 24, 2014 – customer emailed BBC, requesting that he be given an

extension to end of May, when he had time off, to take the pre-course

diagnostic exam (it was going to expire on 5-3-2014, per the course

specifications and per what he paid for with the course)”

This marks the first of many instances

where BBC was both rude and unhelpful... As per the e-mail I sent on 04/24/2014,

I asked to begin my studies with BBC at the end of May 2014 (as that is when I

had time set aside to study for the COMLEX examination). A request of this

nature should not have been an issue; I have had similar arrangements with

other board preparation companies in the past... Nevertheless, BBC took great

issue with this request, and sent me an e-mail that was demining, threating,

and unprofessional (please see BBC e-mail response dated 05/27/2014 from staff

member “Clark”).

April 24, 2014 – customer was emailed, explaining that these are designed to be

done prior to studies, and to be done while working (e.g., do not need to take

time off to do them; most of our clientele are in school/undergoing in-hospital

training at the time they take it). However, in concession to his request, BBC

provided an extra week, giving him a free one week extension until 5-10-2014,

during which time he could take them. It was also noted that, if he still

needed more time beyond that extension, then to please respond to the next

diagnostic exam reminder he was going to be sent and let us know, wherein BBC

would see what could be done for him, although these are designed to be taken

while in medical school/in in-hospital training (customer NEVER responded to

this email, or the subsequent reminder in a timely manner)

After having to literally fight with

BBC to get the extension, the Pre-Course diagnostic exams were taken on time.

Therefore, no response was necessary on my part, as I in fact did what I said I

was going to do in the prior e-mail.

April 28, 2014 – customer was emailed a notice that his pre-course diagnostic

exams were originally going to expire on May 3, 2014, but again confirmed his

free extension to 5/10/2014, and that this would be his last reminder to take

them before they expire.

Irrelevant to initial complaint

April 28, 2014 – customer emailed BBC, requesting an invoice (e.g., receipt)

for the course be emailed to him, so he would have proof for his school that he

is enrolled.

Irrelevant to initial complaint

April 28, 2014 – customer was emailed the receipt.

•

Pre-Course Diagnostic Exam eligibility expired on

May 10 (the extension date provided to him); student never responded to the

extension we granted up to this date, nor the suggestion to write after his

last reminder to request more time, if more time was going to be needed)

Again, after having to fight for the

extension, the Pre-Course diagnostic exams were taken on time.

May 27, 2014 – Customer writes, apologizing for

not having written sooner; he requested that he be able to have the pre-course

dx exams availed on May 30-June 1, “if at all possible.” (which requires that

we re-enter him into that system and set-up/re-establish the account again for

him, complete with establishing bandwidth access (at cost to the company for

something already availed to him), despite multiple previous emails sent about

expiration and even an extension provided).

The fact that it was such a “struggle”

for BBC to “re-enter” me in the system and use up their “bandwidth” only goes to

show what type of hack-job operation BBC runs. Again, as stated before, after

having to fight for the extension, the Pre-Course diagnostic exams were taken

on time. This instance alone demonstrates how BBC really will not put in any

extra effort for it customers. BBC deliberately makes it seem like it is such a

difficult task to actually help anyone out. May 27, 2014 – customer was emailed, noting that

he had been sent expiration notices on April 14, April 21, and April 28, and

that he was also afforded an extension to May 10, 2014. BBC also noted that,

because he did not request any further extension, by default, the account

terminated. He was informed that, had he contacted BBC prior to its expiry, we

would have been happy to work with him to find a schedule amenable to his

needs. However, he waited until the account no longer exists, and requested an

extension to a then non-existent account. We encouraged him to do the course

itself, as the pre-course diagnostic exam only gave a measure of status prior

to the course. We asked that he contact us if he has questions, or if we can be

of further assistance

Refer to above comments…

May 28, 2014 – customer writes to tell us that

the expiration of his account is “unacceptable” (although he was well aware of the

expiry date, and also given an extension), and that it is “not always easy to

remember to send specific emails at specific times for things that should not

really be an issue in the first place” (however, this student was sent a

welcome email stating the deadline, was then sent three separate reminders of

the upcoming expiration, and was also sent an email stating that we had availed

him an extension – all he needed to do was take the exam, something that our

other customers (all of whom are medical students or resident physicians)

managed to do, except for him). He noted that no other boards prep firms

abide by deadlines, implying they do not apply to his unique situation of being

a medical student.Again, BBC only “attacks” it's

students and paying customers. BBC will not put in any extra effort without

complaining. This clearly demonstrates the ever-lengthening trend of BBC’s

significantly below industry standard customer service. BBC has absolutely no

idea how their board preparation competition seems to work. BBC and its

“physician administrations” are entirely out of touch with reality, and most

certainty doesn’t understand the commitments of third-year medical students

(although they claim to on their website). May 28, 2014 – customer was emailed personally by

BBC Executive Director, and President of the parent corporation. He was

apprised that all service companies, including boards prep firms, have specific

limits to use of the services; that is why deadlines exist, with all service

firms. He also was reminded that he was apprised on 4 different occasions of

what the upcoming expiry date was, and was given an extension, and would have

been given more of an extension, free of charge, had he responded to our last

deadline warning email or to the email offering him the extension. He was

reminded that he never made contact with us in response to the extension

provision and offering, and that that particular course component therefore

expired and that account no longer existed. Nevertheless, we shared our

interest in and commitment to his boards success (the boards exams are what we

prepare medical students for), and so BBC offered to take on the cost of

establishing a new account for him, setting it up, and availing it again to

him.

•

BBC then established a new pre-course diagnostic

exam account for the customer, doing so free of charge with no cost to customer

(with company absorbing costs for this)

There should be no “cost” for giving

someone on-line access to a system. It should be no more difficult than

entering a person’s name and e-mail address. BBC again shows how absolutely out

of touch with reality they are. It should be clear by now that BBC does not

make an effort to help its customers without complaining, as well as significantly

exaggerating what they have to do to make their feeble attempt to “help.”

May 28, 2014 – customer emailed back, explaining

that he understands that once a course expires, it needs to be re-purchased

[note to Revdex.com: his course had not expired – the course has multiple parts; one

part of his course expired). However, his response to the question about what

we could have done better, considering that he had ignored the 4 expiry

notifications/advance warnings was that “beyond the reminder e-mails, my

response is simply to have just restored the access to that portion of the

course,” failing to acknowledge that it is he who allowed it to expire, despite

our many attempts to warn the customer of its impending expiry (and our

provision of an extension, too) – all things he acknowledges.

Again, as per common sense (something

that BBC and its “physicians” lack), and more importantly industry standards,

the Pre-Course Diagnostic Exams should never have expired during the six-month

time period for which I PAID IN FULL. This above statement from BBC is

worthless…

May 29, 2014 – customer was sent login credentials for the diagnostic exams

Irrelevant to initial complaint

July 21, 2014 – customer failed the BBC assessment exam, a statistical tool

used to predict boards pass fail outcomes; was sent an email helping him

interpret the results, along with suggestions to postpone the boards exam but

to please write back, so we can work with him to provide customized studies and

other remedies to the situation

July 22, 2014 – customer responded to the 7/21 email, stating that he took an

additional assessment exam (from the [redacted]), and acknowledged that his

performance on that was also weak; nevertheless, he indicated that he felt it

was in his best interest to take boards as scheduled anyway (despite predictors

to the contrary of success). He also requested that he have a full detail of

his BBC assessment exam performance emailed to him.

BBC’s assessment exam was SIMPLY

WRONG. It is a statistically WORTHLESS tool. Per my passing results on the

actual exam, I have in fact clearly proved this point. The fact of the matter

is that BBC using their “advanced” statistics, more or less bet that I would

fail the real exam. Now that I have passed the actual exam, and showed that

their assessment was NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT, BBC is doing whatever it possibly

can so as not to look like the is they actually are...

Being skeptical of their Post-Course

Diagnostic Exam, I utilized the [redacted]’s COMSAE exam (an assessment tool make by

the test makers themselves) to verify BBC’s exam results. Having passed the

[redacted]’s exam, and not having an option to just “take more time off” (something

that no third-year medical student can just randomly decide to do – and something

that a board preparation course run by responsible “physicians” should have

knowledge of to begin with) I took the exam and passed. If I had listened to

the advice of BBC, I would have seriously jeopardized my future medical career

(see e-mail dated 09/04/2014, to which BBC entirely ignored).

July 22, 2014 – customer was emailed by a faculty member, writing in response

to his July 21 email, offering assistance and academic support, as well as

suggesting alternate ways to get more time, as was needed, to study prior to

boards; customer never responded

Response was not necessary, as I

already informed BBC of my plans in a prior e-mail. Also, the e-mail sent to me

was so excessively negative (in terms of its total lack of confidence in my

abilities), I wasn’t going to waste my time to e-mail these uniformed iss.

It would have been a crucial waste of precious study time to dedicate more

resources to their failing approach to the COMLEX exam and general ignorance.

July 22, 2014 – per his request, customer was sent a detailed breakdown of

assessment exam results

Irrelevant to initial complaint

September 4, 2014 – customer emailed BBC to thank one of its faculty members

for the time put into assistance rendered to him, but to also complain that his

experience with BBC was dissatisfying. More specifically, he complained that he

took the exam [boards] as he had originally planned (although we advised that

he postpone to study more, studies that we would personally guide him through),

and that he did in fact pass, but was not pleased with the score (although we

advised that he had a high chance of failing, or getting a very low score, if

he did not afford himself a little more time to prepare). He then went on to

imply that the stress the assessment exam created for him contributed to his

unsatisfying boards exam result (The statistical likelihood for a failed

outcome was high, with the customer demonstrating a >50% chance of

failing – but he passed, albeit with a low score; he also scored poorly on

a non-BBC third party assessment exam, too). In the same email, he

asks for a refund, and then writes “to your credit, while doing the course, I

did feel like I was learning, and felt like I was becoming a more knowledgeable

future physician. Unfortunately, the ends do justify the means, and it is now

clear the BBC was not the means to excel on the COMLEX.” (Student acknowledges

he learned a lot, acknowledges he used the resources, and acknowledges he did

not follow our advice – and yet complains that he did not get the score he

wanted).

•

Also relevant is that the customer did not

exactly follow or complete the program; documentation of his online activity

can be provided, if this comes into question. He completed only 2/3 of the

course, as designed, and then did studies out of order, without regard to

program requirements. Hence, the complaint also is filed in the face of a

situation in which the student was not following the program to completion as

designed, and using program resources randomly after the first 2/3 were

finished.

To say my experience with BBC is

“dissatisfying” is an understatement. As I stated before, I completed the

program in time, and there was no possible way to “set aside more time” for extra

study. Again, third-year medical students cannot just stop their rotations and

add extra time to study whenever they feel like it. BBC should know this, but

clearly this is a concept they have a difficult time understanding... The

e-mail response that I received from BBC was designed to intimidate, alluding

to the fact that BBC was “absolutely positive” I would fail the actual exam.

The e-mail they sent even apologizes for not wanting to “sound negative.” As such, an e-mail of this nature would cause

excessive and undue stress to any individual (most especially an individual

about to take a major exam). Now, not wanting to engage in the excess

negativity perpetuated by BBC, I did not see it fit to e-mail them again at

this point. Instead, I decided to finish the course with the knowledge that I

did in fact pass the test-makers ([redacted]) assessment.

I did in fact feel like I was learning

material throughout my BBC studies, the only problem is that BBC course was not

teaching the material correctly. This statement is verified based on the mere

fact that I failed their diagnostic test, yet I passed the [redacted] diagnostic

test as well as the actual exam (marginally), this being with knowledge I

accumulated in my past studies and rotations. Clearly, BBC methods make the

student feel that he or she is learning, but does not provide tangible results

when it matters most.

The course was completed fully, the

insinuation that only 2/3 of the course was completed is an utterly

disingenuous statement. Even more interesting is the fact that Lori D[redacted]

even states in one of her training videos that the “third part of the course is

the icing on the cake,” (although there really is no “cake” to begin with).

This same information is present in the printed materials as well; BBC states

that after Part II, the course is “complete.” Nevertheless, I did in fact

complete the third part of the course as well… Another issue with BBC that may

be relevant is the fact that they only allow students access to training videos

on two separate occasions. This is another aspect of BBC’s operations that fall

below industry standards. No other “board preparation” company restricts the

number of times a training video can be viewed, as this is not in the student’s

best interest. Again, this only adds to the already strong case that BBC does

not put forth a genuine effort to do everything in the interest of the student

(at least without complaining or over exaggerating).

Complainant asserts that he used the BBC

“methods,” and implies the method is flawed:

1. Customer did not

complete the program, and did not follow the last 1/3 of the study plan

2. Customer

did not follow the recommendations that he postpone (or suggestions for

alternative ways to gain more study time), recommendations provided in

consideration of his failure of the assessment exam, an exam that predicted a

>50% chance of failing the boards exam

3. Customer

did not respond to phone calls and emails made and sent over several months,

offering academic support or guidance

As stated above, this is a blatant

distortion of the truth on the part of BBC. All parts of the course were

completed. See statements above regarding Lori D[redacted]’s video saying course

was “complete” after 2/3 done. However, in my case, I did in fact complete all

BBC assignments, including the “optional” last 1/3 of the course.

Clearly BBC assessment exam was wrong

since I ended up marginally passing the actual exam. BBC has no creditable data

to backup their falsified “statistics.” The Post-Course Diagnostic Exam is

SIMPLY STATISTICALLY NON-SIGNIFICANT.

No phone calls were received, and I

chose not to engage the negativity brought upon me by BBC in their 07/22/2014

e-mail. BBC never responded to my last e-mail on 09/04/2014 (this is clear from

their lack of a response, seen in BBC’s complaint attachments), which directly

led me to opening my case with the Revdex.com.

Complainant asserts that BBC gave him “terrible”

advice, referring to the fact that we advised that he postpone boards since he

clearly was not ready (he had not finished the program, AND took an

assessment exam that predicted a >50% chance of failure; he also had a weak

result on a third-party assessment exam before boards). First, since the advice

was not followed, how can customer complain about the advice, as no harm came

from the advice he labels as “terrible”? He simply ignored our recommendations.

Secondly, instead of failing (for which there was a >50% chance), the

student did pass, albeit with a low score. So, the customer did better than was

expected, and for that he wants a refund? Had the customer followed our

so-called “terrible” advice, his chances for a higher score would have been

greater – he was not ready, both because he did not do the program to completion,

and because he was demonstrating inadequate academic achievement at the time of

his intended boards date (probably due to not having finished the program as

designed). We advised that he allow himself more time to study.

The only advice that was not followed

was the advice not to take the exam. Had I followed this advice, I would have

damaged my future professional goals even more so than using the BBC course to

begin with. Again, as stated multiple times now, third-year medical students

cannot just stop rotations because BBC thinks they should. Having done so would

have led to me being “off-schedule” for my fourth-year rotations, would have

delayed my graduation, my residency applications, and my future as a physician

(all of which are intact because I followed the results of the [redacted] test, not

BBC’s test). I do not understand why this is such a difficult concept for BBC

to understand? For a company that is supposedly run by “physicians” (who more

than likely don’t even practice medicine), they should at the very least

understand how a medical school curriculum works in the United States.

If I had reached the exam mean, this

complaint would not even exist. I paid a lot of money for a program that was

suppose to put me far above the mean, which it didn’t even get me to.

Again, the program was completed; the

problem is that BBC’s materials and methods are substandard.

Customer complains that he did not attain the

advertised mean. A mean is an average, meaning that an average

of all scores submitted or obtained is generated. Naturally, some students are

above the mean, and some are below. While we are saddened he was unable to

generate his personally desired score, he should have finished the program as

designed as well as postponed as BBC suggested; nevertheless, a mean is an

average, and does not imply a minimum score to be had.

The student was provided the program, was

provided all components to the program, was provided extension to one of the

services (free of charge), was provided a new account since he allowed the one

that comes with his course to expire (the new account was given free of

charge), was afforded fast, helpful, professional customer support at each

junction wherein he was always treated with respect and concern, was contacted

personally by the company Executive Director and President when indicating

initial dissatisfaction with the fact that there are deadlines to the services,

was contacted by BBC Account Executives several times during the program as

part of our standard of care for customers, wherein BBC calls or writes every

so often to make sure studies are going well and to make sure the customer’s

needs are being met, and was contacted by company faculty in an attempt to

reach out to provide academic support; in addition, the customer acknowledged

he learned a lot from the program, and thanked BBC faculty and staff for the

service provided at various times. Boards Boot Camp met, and surpassed, its

obligation to this student. We are saddened that he is unable to see that we

were concerned about his welfare throughout the entire process, and that he was

fully provided the product and service he purchased. As such, he is not due a

refund.

Finally, it is most unfortunate that the student

had difficulty reaching academic superiority as he had desired. Again, had the

course been followed, as designed, to completion, the chances of doing better

would have been greater; likewise, allowing himself more time to study, as was

advised, would have afforded the student an opportunity to complete the program

as designed. Nevertheless, in a sincere effort to reach out to this student in

concession for his dissatisfaction, as well as to impart services that will be

of value for future boards exams (medical students and physicians must take various

ones throughout their career), we are in a position to offer the student

non-course assistance in the form of personalized one-on-one mentoring, via

email, to cover ways to optimize study skills and maximize question execution

skills, two particular areas that can especially helpful to any student

regardless of their status academically. Such help is normally billable at

$150/hour, since it is provided by a physician/physician educator. We are

prepared to provide support for the aforementioned question execution skills

and study skills, and to provide that on a complimentary basis (up to a value

of $150, and limited only to those services noted herein); if the customer is

accepting of this offer on or before 9/30/2014 to satisfy his reported complaint/dissatisfaction,

we will gladly move forward in that regard to provide said services prior to

10/31/2014.

If you have any questions, or need further detail

or documentation beyond that included herein, please do not hesitate to contact

us.

AT THE VERY LEAST, BBC’s program

should be able to bring a student to the mean of the exam in which they claim

to prepare that student for. The course was completed in its entirety, and a

substandard score was achieved using BBC’s materials and methods. BBC

advertises scores well above the mean on their website. As such, wanting a

refund for not obtaining at least a basic mean score is perfectly fair.

The fact that BBC wants to offer a

“one-on-one mentoring” is a metaphorical “slap in the face.” Have you not

already done enough damage at this point in time? Your methods are absolute

garbage, and you people clearly have no idea what the hell is going on. Why in

the world would I want mentoring from people who helped me to obtain a

substandard score (which will now damage my chances for specific residency

positions)? Do you people even know that the exam can only be taken one time? The

offer alone is really just pouring “salt on the wound,” and as “physicians” you

should be disgusted with yourselves. I sincerely feel as if BBC is taking

advantage of me. I am just trying to get my medical education and do the best I

possibly can. BBC was an expensive course for me to utilize as I am already

accumulating student loans. I expect to be refunded the full amount for the

time I wasted using BBC’s product.

Lastly, in addition to the complaint

filed with the Revdex.com on 09/21/2014, a complaint has also been

filed with the Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania on 09/21/2014.