Optometry degree in the UK, practicing in Canada

[Optogal]

UK medical and dental degrees are five year bachelor degrees.

It seems education there is five or 6 years long, but they also offer some kind of "intercalated" degree that can push the education to 6-7 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_school_in_the_United_Kingdom

Do these UK medical grads automatic qualify for practice in Canada? I think they have to do a residency here before they are allowed to practice?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Optogal]

I see, I googled IOBP and was directed to waterloos site.

If the IOBP is such a big issue, why is it not closed yet? I think there is some sorta conflict of interest (if thats what they call it) going on, because, the faculty for the IOBP program is part of the ontario association, right? They could be saying, oh yeah its bad, but they have the power, since they are part of an association, to keep the program running.

I wouldn't know for sure though, just some speculation.

The IOBP has been a bit of a controversy. There was an an association newsletter last year that had some position statement that they wanted internationals to have an OD degree before they practiced, like they do in the U.S. I might be able to dig it up somewhere.

 

[namams]

It seems education there is five or 6 years long, but they also offer some kind of "intercalated" degree that can push the education to 6-7 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_school_in_the_United_Kingdom

Do these UK medical grads automatic qualify for practice in Canada? I think they have to do a residency here before they are allowed to practice?

Yes they'd have to do a residency in Canada after their med. school. Not only that but they'd have to write qualifying exams in order to even apply for residency; and then they'd probably struggle to even get a residency spot as Canada makes it very hard for IMGs.

I think the way it works for doctors in the UK is to do the 5 year undergraduate medicine program; 2 years working as a junior doctor; and then their specialist training. For instance I think it takes 6 or 7 years after the 2 years of junior doctor training to become an ophthalmologist. So pretty much on par with Canada/USA.

Although I guess this post is a little off topic, I thought I'd respond to your query.

 

[imemily]

Yes they'd have to do a residency in Canada after their med. school. Not only that but they'd have to write qualifying exams in order to even apply for residency; and then they'd probably struggle to even get a residency spot as Canada makes it very hard for IMGs.

I think the way it works for doctors in the UK is to do the 5 year undergraduate medicine program; 2 years working as a junior doctor; and then their specialist training. For instance I think it takes 6 or 7 years after the 2 years of junior doctor training to become an ophthalmologist. So pretty much on par with Canada/USA.

Although I guess this post is a little off topic, I thought I'd respond to your query.

But Canadians coming BACK to canada aren't IMG's (international medical graduates?), since they are Canadian, right?

 

[Optogal]

But Canadians coming BACK to canada aren't IMG's (international medical graduates?), since they are Canadian, right?

No - in this case Canadians studying abroad count as IMGs, since they graduated from a foreign institution.

 

[Bioflare]

I see, I googled IOBP and was directed to waterloos site.

If the IOBP is such a big issue, why is it not closed yet? I think there is some sorta conflict of interest (if thats what they call it) going on, because, the faculty for the IOBP program is part of the ontario association, right? They could be saying, oh yeah its bad, but they have the power, since they are part of an association, to keep the program running.

I wouldn't know for sure though, just some speculation.

The program itself is good for Canada, there has been many strides recently to give foreign trained professionals to transfer their qualifications. The problem is how the program is setup at this moment in time. If the IOBP program's graduates had similar Canadian Board pass rates 80%+ then most would have no problem with it.

The fact is they aren't screening applicants well enough, and aren't providing the right transfer program. There have been some recent changes to the program, which makes it more difficult for people taking shortcuts to come back to Canada and practice. The hardest problem is screening, as a lot of people can claim to be Optometrists but the education they have had in their home countries could be less than what is required of an Optician (which is very little). And lastly politics, the source of a lot of problems in our world xD.

As for the association, they don't actually have that much power as the IOBP affects Canada and not just the province of Ontario. But I can only hope that the pressure they are giving to Waterloo starts to mold the IOBP into what it should be.

 

[physicslover]

well if they IOBP arent's passing their boards, then they wont be licensed to practice anyways...so whats the problem? in end everyone is taking the same boards, and need to pass it in order to practice.

 

[imemily]

The program itself is good for Canada, there has been many strides recently to give foreign trained professionals to transfer their qualifications. The problem is how the program is setup at this moment in time. If the IOBP program's graduates had similar Canadian Board pass rates 80%+ then most would have no problem with it.

The fact is they aren't screening applicants well enough, and aren't providing the right transfer program. There have been some recent changes to the program, which makes it more difficult for people taking shortcuts to come back to Canada and practice. The hardest problem is screening, as a lot of people can claim to be Optometrists but the education they have had in their home countries could be less than what is required of an Optician (which is very little). And lastly politics, the source of a lot of problems in our world xD.

As for the association, they don't actually have that much power as the IOBP affects Canada and not just the province of Ontario. But I can only hope that the pressure they are giving to Waterloo starts to mold the IOBP into what it should be.

On a supply/demand basis, I would think OD's would appose the IOBP, as it pumps out more optometrists.

If the IOBP is such a huge issue, why is it still running? I've noticed that many things are left as-is, in Canada, as opposed to USA.

I couldn't imagine such a program existing in the states, without some detrimental repercussions.

 

[syma]

On a supply/demand basis, I would think OD's would appose the IOBP, as it pumps out more optometrists.

If the IOBP is such a huge issue, why is it still running? I've noticed that many things are left as-is, in Canada, as opposed to USA.

I couldn't imagine such a program existing in the states, without some detrimental repercussions.

You do have a similar program existing in the states. NECO is one of the universities that do a conversion course, although it is 2 years for all graduates regardless of the country they studied Optometry in.

And as far as supply/demand; there are 90 places at ONE English speaking university, there are still far more pre-optometry students that head to the states than to England. If that's the case, then OD's should oppose any internationally trained optometrist, if we are truly concerned about supply/demand.

And with the accusations of inferior education in the UK, as anyone actually looked at the curriculum? Has anyone actually spoken to a UK educated optometrist? There may certainly a disparity between US primary care optometrists, (depending on state) hence the 2 year requirement, but not between Canada and the UK. There isn't even a conversion course required between Australia and UK. And the Caribbean accepts either qualification.

The pass rate is inclusive of ALL internationally trained optometrists, not just those that are educated in the UK.

 

[Optogal]

You do have a similar program existing in the states. NECO is one of the universities that do a conversion course, although it is 2 years for all graduates regardless of the country they studied Optometry in.

And as far as supply/demand; there are 90 places at ONE English speaking university, there are still far more pre-optometry students that head to the states than to England. If that's the case, then OD's should oppose any internationally trained optometrist, if we are truly concerned about supply/demand.

And with the accusations of inferior education in the UK, as anyone actually looked at the curriculum? Has anyone actually spoken to a UK educated optometrist? There may certainly a disparity between US primary care optometrists, (depending on state) hence the 2 year requirement, but not between Canada and the UK. There isn't even a conversion course required between Australia and UK. And the Caribbean accepts either qualification.

The pass rate is inclusive of ALL internationally trained optometrists, not just those that are educated in the UK.

The issue I think is that US schools are accredited by the same governing body that governs the UW curriculum. UK/other country institutions are not.

 

[Bioflare]

@syma I'm not trying to attack the curriculum of the UK, but this thread and other thread stated reasons for going to the UK, to bypass North American schooling, for a faster way into Optometry. In no way am I saying that UK Optometrists are poorly trained, its just that the systems differ.

As Optogal has stated, accreditation for UW and the US schools are under the same criteria, opposed to the accreditation of UK schools. For all we know there may be schools in the UK that are up to US standards, but there may also be schools far below these standards.

 

[physicslover]

I would assume all schools in the UK would be under similar standards as they are required to be registered by the optical council

 

[Optogal]

I assume the UK has its own credentialing process. I don't think the UK is the biggest fuss. There's optometry graduates from other places (philipines, HK, iran, some African states) who have been permitted to do the IOBP/CSAO.

Canada has had a hard time finding adequate teaching staff (or so it seems. All the school's recent hires for clinical faculty positions are Americans, suggesting there are no Canadians who are qualified). If UW has this problem, then how is it that international optometry schools do not?

 

[Dogod]

Neither the Ontario association nor the college support the IOBP in its current state. The college wants any bridging program to be at least one year in length.
This is the minutes of the college of Ontario meeting March 10, 2011:

"...in consideration of legal advice provided to the College, if the proposed Registration Regulation submitted to the Ministry of Health and Long–Term Care (Ministry) is not supported and advanced by the Ministry by May 1, 2011, the College has no alternative but to apply the present Registration Regulation as written and thereby no longer recognize the successful completion of either Bridging 1 or Bridging 2 of the International Optometric Bridging Program (IOBP) as meeting the academic qualification requirements for a General Certificate of Registration. Consideration will be made for those applicants presently enrolled in the IOBP program."

 

[Optogal]

Neither the Ontario association nor the college support the IOBP in its current state. The college wants any bridging program to be at least one year in length.
This is the minutes of the college of Ontario meeting March 10, 2011:

"...in consideration of legal advice provided to the College, if the proposed Registration Regulation submitted to the Ministry of Health and Long–Term Care (Ministry) is not supported and advanced by the Ministry by May 1, 2011, the College has no alternative but to apply the present Registration Regulation as written and thereby no longer recognize the successful completion of either Bridging 1 or Bridging 2 of the International Optometric Bridging Program (IOBP) as meeting the academic qualification requirements for a General Certificate of Registration. Consideration will be made for those applicants presently enrolled in the IOBP program."

Wow. So that's a development. It's May 1st now. Are the minutes found online?

My understanding is that UW opposed the regulations that demanded a bridging program of at least 1 year in length. So that position backfired on them, since if the regulation is not adopted, the current regulation stays (that applicants require an OD degree).

 

[physicslover]

today is may 1st...
i believe that noone had supported IOBP but Waterloo did not budge and they were not able to eradicate the program.

 

[imemily]

Neither the Ontario association nor the college support the IOBP in its current state. The college wants any bridging program to be at least one year in length.
This is the minutes of the college of Ontario meeting March 10, 2011:

"...in consideration of legal advice provided to the College, if the proposed Registration Regulation submitted to the Ministry of Health and Long–Term Care (Ministry) is not supported and advanced by the Ministry by May 1, 2011, the College has no alternative but to apply the present Registration Regulation as written and thereby no longer recognize the successful completion of either Bridging 1 or Bridging 2 of the International Optometric Bridging Program (IOBP) as meeting the academic qualification requirements for a General Certificate of Registration. Consideration will be made for those applicants presently enrolled in the IOBP program."

Isn't the person in charge of the IOBP, along with the teachers/doctors, part of the Ontario Association of Optometrist?

If so, than there is definitely some sort of conflict of interest.

Like, the person in charge of the IOBP does not support it, but works as a faculty member for the IOBP

 

[Dogod]

The 3 separate organizations in this IOBP controversy are the college that licenses optometrists, the association (OAO) and UW. At the moment only UW supports the continuance of the IOBP as it is. IOBP grads so far have been licensed in Ontario without any changes to the regulations which, as I understand, state that optometrists must have an optometry degree from and ACOE-accredited school. IOBP is not accredited by ACOE.
UK schools should thank the UW directors of the IOBP for the increase in Canadian enrollment. UW students should be a bit pissed that the same school they pay their tuition to after working hard to be accepted after 3 yrs of pre-opt, allows and supports this back-door program that ulitmately increases their competition for positions in an ever-competitive job market.

 

[syma]

The 3 separate organizations in this IOBP controversy are the college that licenses optometrists, the association (OAO) and UW. At the moment only UW supports the continuance of the IOBP as it is. IOBP grads so far have been licensed in Ontario without any changes to the regulations which, as I understand, state that optometrists must have an optometry degree from and ACOE-accredited school. IOBP is not accredited by ACOE.
UK schools should thank the UW directors of the IOBP for the increase in Canadian enrollment. UW students should be a bit pissed that the same school they pay their tuition to after working hard to be accepted after 3 yrs of pre-opt, allows and supports this back-door program that ulitmately increases their competition for positions in an ever-competitive job market.

Actually, UK grads returning to Canada have also done the 3 years pre-opt as that's a requirement for them to return to Canada.

 

[physicslover]

yea i think theres a misunderstanding about the UK grads, they cant directly go in from hs and then come here and practice as an optometrist. either they need to have done an undergrad previously before their optometry school, or have been working for 3 years afterward.

 

[imemily]

The 3 separate organizations in this IOBP controversy are the college that licenses optometrists, the association (OAO) and UW. At the moment only UW supports the continuance of the IOBP as it is. IOBP grads so far have been licensed in Ontario without any changes to the regulations which, as I understand, state that optometrists must have an optometry degree from and ACOE-accredited school. IOBP is not accredited by ACOE.
UK schools should thank the UW directors of the IOBP for the increase in Canadian enrollment. UW students should be a bit pissed that the same school they pay their tuition to after working hard to be accepted after 3 yrs of pre-opt, allows and supports this back-door program that ulitmately increases their competition for positions in an ever-competitive job market.

What a scam!

You don't see mds, dentists or pharmacists being allowed to practice in Canada, through a shady bridging program.

I am thinking that the canadian optometry associations are very weak compared to other health associations, in Canada.

 

[thecgrblue]

What a scam!

You don't see mds, dentists or pharmacists being allowed to practice in Canada, through a shady bridging program.

I am thinking that the canadian optometry associations are very weak compared to other health associations, in Canada.

Yes they do. Intl. physicians can do 2-year bridging programs in Canada.

 

[syma]

What a scam!

You don't see mds, dentists or pharmacists being allowed to practice in Canada, through a shady bridging program.

I am thinking that the canadian optometry associations are very weak compared to other health associations, in Canada.

I'm thinking none of you actually know what the IOBP program is about.

It isn't JUST for UK graduates. But they're the ones that are often roasted in regards to the program.

http://www.ipgcanada.ca/

^^pharmacy bridging program.

I don't know any UK optometry graduate from Canada that did not do 3 years or their full undergraduate degree first.

The fact of the matter is, there are very few spots available to do optometry in Canada. Not all of us have parents that can remortgage their house or stacks of cash available to attend american schools for optometry.

If there was any amount of concern about how UK graduates are educated any one of you would know the full extent of what the optometry program entails for any of the UK schools.

 

[syma]

Oh look, you don't even have to do the bridging program for pharmacy.

http://www.pebc.ca/index.php/ci_id/4910/la_id/1.htm

 

[imemily]

That is a terrible excuse. Most students take out loans to finance their education.

Well, I just went to : http://www1.aston.ac.uk/international-students/finance/#Undergraduate

And it seems tuition in the UK is roughly 15K pounds, which is $30k. How is that cheaper than US state schools?

Also, if the UK is a much cheaper alternative, than why don't more Canadians obtain their degree via the UK/bridging programs?

EDIT: I just think the IOBP should be changed so that it isn't considered a scam/joke etc. I would bet if the program was restricted to applicants who have significant experience in Optometry, than ODs in Canada would not have a problem with it. Just a thought.

 

[namams]

That is a terrible excuse. Most students take out loans to finance their education.

Well, I just went to : http://www1.aston.ac.uk/international-students/finance/#Undergraduate

And it seems tuition in the UK is roughly 15K pounds, which is $30k. How is that cheaper than US state schools?

Also, if the UK is a much cheaper alternative, than why don't more Canadians obtain their degree via the UK/bridging programs?

EDIT: I just think the IOBP should be changed so that it isn't considered a scam/joke etc. I would bet if the program was restricted to applicants who have significant experience in Optometry, than ODs in Canada would not have a problem with it. Just a thought.

Actually, 15k GBP converts to $23,726.03 Canadian with today's exchange rates. You only pay tuition for three years. You get paid for your last year of training (the pre-reg year); usually between 12k GBP to the high teens. So it works out to be cheaper than the US.

 

[syma]

That is a terrible excuse. Most students take out loans to finance their education.

Well, I just went to : http://www1.aston.ac.uk/international-students/finance/#Undergraduate

And it seems tuition in the UK is roughly 15K pounds, which is $30k. How is that cheaper than US state schools?

Also, if the UK is a much cheaper alternative, than why don't more Canadians obtain their degree via the UK/bridging programs?

EDIT: I just think the IOBP should be changed so that it isn't considered a scam/joke etc. I would bet if the program was restricted to applicants who have significant experience in Optometry, than ODs in Canada would not have a problem with it. Just a thought.

And some people don't have access to loans of that magnitude to go to school. It's common sense. For any student that I've come across that's from Canada, America was an option, but it worked out to be more expensive than to attend the UK.

Because it IS cheaper. And you're only paying tuition for 3 years. As the 4th year (internship) you are paid for.

Now your edit insinuates that the optometry program is far more inferior in the UK than it is elsewhere. Why would someone that has gone to school in the UK need *significant experience* in optometry?

Everyone seems hung up on the degree awarded to optometrists without actually focussing on the syllabus. Some states, yes, definitely have a larger scope of practice. And perhaps 2 years is suitable for the US.

But Canada doesn't.

 

[imemily]

And some people don't have access to loans of that magnitude to go to school. It's common sense. For any student that I've come across that's from Canada, America was an option, but it worked out to be more expensive than to attend the UK.

Because it IS cheaper. And you're only paying tuition for 3 years. As the 4th year (internship) you are paid for.

Now your edit insinuates that the optometry program is far more inferior in the UK than it is elsewhere. Why would someone that has gone to school in the UK need *significant experience* in optometry?

Everyone seems hung up on the degree awarded to optometrists without actually focussing on the syllabus. Some states, yes, definitely have a larger scope of practice. And perhaps 2 years is suitable for the US.

But Canada doesn't.

I was just saying that the IOBP would actually look like a real bridging program if candidates selected had more experience/training. Otherwise, it just looks like a back door for students who are either unable or unwilling to go to a proper 4 year school.

Do you have any data on practicing ODs who have graduated form the IOBP? How many of them are from the UK? I would think a minority, as the majority of trained ODs are from Canada/USA.

 

[syma]

I was just saying that the IOBP would actually look like a real bridging program if candidates selected had more experience/training. Otherwise, it just looks like a back door for students who are either unable or unwilling to go to a proper 4 year school.

Do you have any data on practicing ODs who have graduated form the IOBP? How many of them are from the UK? I would think a minority, as the majority of trained ODs are from Canada/USA.

And I've asked you why would a UK educated optometrist require more experience or training?

 

[namams]

And I've asked you why would a UK educated optometrist require more experience or training?

Because it's not a 'proper' degree lol. I wouldn't bother arguing - imemily seems to think they know best. Never mind the fact that a great number of the faculty members at Waterloo and some in the US are optometrists originally from the UK. Or the fact that after completing the IOBP, the same boards that Waterloo students take must be passed. But I guess the purpose of a board exam is not to prove competence and is really just a formality.

 

[Optogal]

I'll put in my 2 cents.

Yes they do. Intl. physicians can do 2-year bridging programs in Canada.

I believe international physicians have to do residency in the discipline they want to practice in. That is hardly a mild requirement. They also have to qualify for the residency which is no guarantee.

I don't know any UK optometry graduate from Canada that did not do 3 years or their full undergraduate degree first.

Your point is? Are you stating as fact there has been none? Or simply that you don't know of any?

The fact of the matter is, there are very few spots available to do optometry in Canada. Not all of us have parents that can remortgage their house or stacks of cash available to attend american schools for optometry.

People have to do all sorts of things to attend medical school in Canada. That doesn't mean developing a secondary path to the UK is appropriate.

Further, if you think costs are bad here, isn't the situation for Americans in the US worse? But I don't see any American institutions creating a UK-path just cause some American's parents don't want to remortgage their house to let their kid attend optometry school.

If there was any amount of concern about how UK graduates are educated any one of you would know the full extent of what the optometry program entails for any of the UK schools.

Well by law, optometrists are supposed to graduate from ASCO accredited schools. I don't know that any of these schools are accredited but if they are you can share that information with us.

Now your edit insinuates that the optometry program is far more inferior in the UK than it is elsewhere. Why would someone that has gone to school in the UK need *significant experience* in optometry?

Part of it might be because of the poor pass rates of internationals who write the CSAO. Part of it might be because they are lumped together with graduates from Hong Kong, China, Philippines, Iran, Nigeria who have all been allowed to sit the CSAO to get licensed in Canada.

Never mind the fact that a great number of the faculty members at Waterloo and some in the US are optometrists originally from the UK.

Faculty who are hired at UW are hired because of their PhD, not because they hold a Bachelor of optometry from some UK institution. So it really is a secondary matter that they have a Bach. Optom. Some UW faculty aren't even optometrists because they have PhDs. In the past, the earliest UK Bach Optometry/PhDs had the OD conferred from a North American institution prior to gaining faculty position at UW. A. Cullen is an example of this.

But you bring up a good point. Because the UK educational system for optometry is faster, more folks who have an interest in pursuing studies acquire the PhD. The educational route for optometrists in Canada/US is so long, that North America hardly produces any optometrists with PhDs. That's part of the reason why there is so many UK PhD optometrists in academia.

And I've asked you why would a UK educated optometrist require more experience or training?

Honestly, the matter is that they are lucky they are allowed to work here. (And how exactly do they have "more training"?) I don't know if licensure is a privilege, but it isn't a right, and it's a common occurrence that if you don't possess domestic qualifications specific for a country (in whatever profession), you don't get to work. In any case, to answer your question, it's because they graduated from a non-recognized (non-accredited) school. But more probably, cause if they didn't (and had less experience/training), then the IOBP would be under even more scrutiny than it already is, so it requirement is probably just a political one to deflect criticism off the IOBP.

 

[syma]

No because it is a requirement for international graduates to have their undergraduate degree first. So that's my point. The experience requirement for the IOBP is for practitioners that are looking to immigrate to Canada.

And you have also not answered the question, politics aside and the fact it is a UK school, why would a UK graduate require more experience before applying to the IOBP?

I have not disputed the fact that some kind of bridging program should exist. But the argument made falls back on the sole fact that they are UK graduates. And your point is? It is a non-accredited program. That's an obvious statement, but beyond that what is the need for them to require more experience or training before starting an IOBP program?

And re: cost of attending schools. Some options are limited for people. Unfortunately so. And ergo that limits goals for people. But the students that attend optometry in the UK are graduates that had every intent to attend the US, but simply couldn't afford to do so.

It was not developing a secondary path for students to take advantage of, but because of the limited spaces of the optometry program IN canada, and losing graduates to go to the states and don't return, and those going to the UK that don't return.

I remember before the IOBP program existed UMIST and City University attended University of Waterloo to advertise for their program.

Some form of bridging program will exist, whether it is 8 weeks or a full years long. You will still have students attending the UK for optometry because the demand is there.

 

[namams]

I'll put in my 2 cents.

Faculty who are hired at UW are hired because of their PhD, not because they hold a Bachelor of optometry from some UK institution. So it really is a secondary matter that they have a Bach. Optom. Some UW faculty aren't even optometrists because they have PhDs. In the past, the earliest UK Bach Optometry/PhDs had the OD conferred from a North American institution prior to gaining faculty position at UW. A. Cullen is an example of this.

But you bring up a good point. Because the UK educational system for optometry is faster, more folks who have an interest in pursuing studies acquire the PhD. The educational route for optometrists in Canada/US is so long, that North America hardly produces any optometrists with PhDs. That's part of the reason why there is so many UK PhD optometrists in academia.

While I do agree that they are hired because of their PhDs, don't you think that in order for them to have completed their PhDs they would had to have had an excellent foundation in optometry? I think a lot of them teach courses related directly to clinical optometry; they wouldn't be teaching those courses if they just had a PhD and no undergrad in optometry. Yes there are non-optometrist PhDs there but I'm sure the courses they teach are not directly related to clinical optometry. You probably went to Waterloo so why don't you ask the UK educated profs if they think that UK grads are still inferior after completing the IOBP.

Also, I know these are just probably outliers, but Deborah Jones, Head of Pediatrics and Special Needs Clinic and Desmond Fonn, Centre for Contact Lens Research are optometrists educated in the UK/SA who don't have PhDs. I did a quick scan of the faculty pages so I don't know if there are just typos and they in fact do have PhDs.

Finally, Waterloo is a world renowned scientific university - why would they set up a shoddy bridging program? Yes, I'm sure it generates income but it's probably a low amount in the grand scheme of things and not worth ruining their reputation.

I don't think UK grads should be clumped in with the rest of the people completing the IOBP. A lot of us could've easily gone to the US or maybe gotten into Waterloo if we applied a few times; we just saw a pathway leading to our goal that was better financially.

 

[Optogal]

I really am not trying to get in fight over this. But reading your replies, I think the point you folks are missing is this: When you bring foreign credentials to Canada to practice in your profession, the onus is on you to prove they are equivalent to Canadian standards NOT on us to prove they are dissimilar. The burden of proof is on you. One way to provide that proof is for ASCO to accredit your programs. In the absence of that, you really have to do more than just say "but they are the same".

No because it is a requirement for international graduates to have their undergraduate degree first. So that's my point. The experience requirement for the IOBP is for practitioners that are looking to immigrate to Canada.

I don't understand. I don't believe the UK schools require an undergraduate degree prior to admission. I don't think the IOBP requires an undergraduate (pre optometry) degree either.

And you have also not answered the question, politics aside and the fact it is a UK school, why would a UK graduate require more experience before applying to the IOBP?

It is because of politics. Recently they changed the requirement from 2 to 3 years. Why? Because UW changed their pre-optom requirements from 2 to 3 years. I don't know of any epiphany that occurs after 2 years of practice, and suddenly after 3 years (coinciding with the change in preoptometry regs). So yes, it is politics.

Continuing with politics, in the UK students to HS directly to optom school. So they could get licensed in 4 years. Canadians studying at UW needs 7 years. If UW didn't require 3 years of work experience, people would complain that UK grads need only 4 years to practice in Canada (while Canadians need 7). Hence, the 3 years of practice. Again, merely political to deflect criticism since there is no epiphany that occurs right after 2 (and now 3) years of work.

I have not disputed the fact that some kind of bridging program should exist. But the argument made falls back on the sole fact that they are UK graduates. And your point is? It is a non-accredited program. That's an obvious statement, but beyond that what is the need for them to require more experience or training before starting an IOBP program?

The onus is on you to provide proof your educational background is adequate, not on me to prove it inadequate. You have the option of doing the UW OD, but you choose not to.

As for costs, all these students have the option to attend UW at an even lower cost, but do not, probably cause they don't have the marks to.

As for what UK profs at UW think, I don't think that satisfies the "burden" I have referred to.

While I do agree that they are hired because of their PhDs, don't you think that in order for them to have completed their PhDs they would had to have had an excellent foundation in optometry?

Define excellent foundation in optometry? Whatever it is, is it equivalent to the OD at UW?

Finally, Waterloo is a world renowned scientific university - why would they set up a shoddy bridging program?

What is the purpose of this statement? Do you understand circular logic? Your argument for the IOBP is that UW is a good institution and therefore the IOBP must be too.

 

[namams]

I really am not trying to get in fight over this. But reading your replies, I think the point you folks are missing is this: When you bring foreign credentials to Canada to practice in your profession, the onus is on you to prove they are equivalent to Canadian standards NOT on us to prove they are dissimilar. The burden of proof is on you. One way to provide that proof is for ASCO to accredit your programs. In the absence of that, you really have to do more than just say "but they are the same".



As for what UK profs at UW think, I don't think that satisfies the "burden" I have referred to.



Define excellent foundation in optometry? Whatever it is, is it equivalent to the OD at UW?



What is the purpose of this statement? Do you understand circular logic? Your argument for the IOBP is that UW is a good institution and therefore the IOBP must be too.

Why would a student who takes a bridging program that grants him the license to practice optometry in Canada have to prove that the program was up to Canadian standards? Shouldn't that be up to the school who runs the program? How do these graduates of the IOBP become licensed if it doesn't prove competence?

I would think an 'excellent foundation in optometry' would be self explanatory. I do think the UK degree in optometry is lacking in therapeutics when compared to Waterloo's. Most optometrists in the UK practice optometry the same way as it was practised in Ontario up until April 7th of this year. The bridging program does address this by bringing students up to standard. I can't say whether a UK degree is better or worse than Waterloo's OD because I haven't completed both programs.

Not circular logic...I'm simply asking what motive could Waterloo have for the IOBP? It was more of a question...why would they start the IOBP when optometrists have been coming to Canada before it's existence? It's unlikely for an institution of a high calibre to do something mediocre.

Anyways, I'm not trying to fight either. This must be how ODs feel when OMDs try to go against every scope expansion lol.

 

[physicslover]

For candidates applying to the IOBP in 2012 and beyond

Candidates must:

1. be currently licensed or registered (or eligible to be licensed or registered) to practice optometry outside Canada, and
2. have successfully completed either:
   1. 3 complete academic years of full-time1 undergraduate university study prior to entering an optometry school and a 4 year optometry degree,2 or
   2. a 4 year optometry degree2 followed by 3 years of optometric work experience outside Canada
   3. thats 7 years of experience at least before being admitted, same amount of experience any one else has
      

 

[syma]

You're right, with the limited places available at UW, marks play a huge role in it; But those that attended american programs didn't have the marks but had the funds.

Anyway, there is no point in continuing this conversation when there are so many falsehoods and assumptions on your part about how the secondary school system in UK, the optometry entrance requirements for international applicants and how the IOBP program is run.

Nevertheless the onus is on neither of us as all the provinces in Canada recognize the IOBP program and find the UK program "adequate"

Kindest regards.

Syma.

 

[imemily]

How do you explain the CSAO borderline pass rates of IOBP grads?


In 2009, only 33.3% of 24 candidates passed the CSAO (equiv. of nebo I guess)

The low pass rates speaks volumes on why the IOBP is not a legitimate bridging program. I mean 66.6% of people who graduated from the IOBP failed it on their first attempt.

 

[namams]

How do you explain the CSAO borderline pass rates of IOBP grads?


In 2009, only 33.3% of 24 candidates passed the CSAO (equiv. of nebo I guess)

The low pass rates speaks volumes on why the IOBP is not a legitimate bridging program. I mean 66.6% of people who graduated from the IOBP failed it on their first attempt.

I think in 2009 51.2% of international candidates passed on the first attempt. That's still pretty crap. See the report here: http://docs.ceo-eco.org/dm/cache/documents/CSAOdocs/2009_CSAO_Results_Analysis_Summary_Report.pdf

The overall pass rate for internationals after 3 attempts was 64.52%. Still pretty crap.

I'd like to know what the pass rate for grads from UK/Australian/NZ schools was but it's not broken down like that. I think it would be a lot higher though.

There were lots of international takers from non english speaking countries so maybe there was a language barrier that affected them amongst other reasons.

Still though, only people who pass can be licensed to practice optometry.

 

[syma]

I think in 2009 51.2% of international candidates passed on the first attempt. That's still pretty crap. See the report here: http://docs.ceo-eco.org/dm/cache/documents/CSAOdocs/2009_CSAO_Results_Analysis_Summary_Report.pdf

The overall pass rate for internationals after 3 attempts was 64.52%. Still pretty crap.

I'd like to know what the pass rate for grads from UK/Australian/NZ schools was but it's not broken down like that. I think it would be a lot higher though.

There were lots of international takers from non english speaking countries so maybe there was a language barrier that affected them. There are also foreign ophthalmologists taking it...I don't think their optometric knowlegde would be so high either.

13 of those 43 internationally educated graduates are UK educated. Which only shows a huge indication of what was previously mentioned. Graduates from other countries strongly skew the overall pass mark.

I wonder what explains the disparity with the Canadian and US graduate pass rates.

 

[Optogal]

And you have also not answered the question, politics aside and the fact it is a UK school, why would a UK graduate require more experience before applying to the IOBP?

My impression is that you seem to think it's a moral injustice that UK grads have hurdles to jump in order to practice in Canada. If we're going to delve into morals, I'll chime in with the following.

1. If I go to Australia and they require I prove my competency to them through a bridging program before they allow me to practice, I think it's entirely in their right (legally and morally) to do so. I think it's even fair if they decide they aren't going to recognize my education background. It's their choice, and it's their choice because I chose not to get educated in their country. They have no obligation to me.

2. There's a bunch of new schools in the US opening, all spending vast amounts of time and money to get accredited. Now - another post above concedes maybe UK doesn't teach TPAs as much as ASCO schools. It can be reasonably argued that maybe some UK institutions currently "fail" to meet ASCO standards (that's not the same as saying they are incapable of meeting those standards). Now - these new US schools who are doing their utmost to get up to standard - suppose some of them fail? Students who graduate from those institutions therefore don't get licensed to practice. Why is it fair that these students can't practice optometry, and yet students who graduate from non-ASCO UK institutions can?

Bottom line is your posts speak of an entitlement, that by having an optometry degree from the UK you are entitled to enter any country and that they have the obligation to declare you fit to practice, anything else is morally unjustified. That's not how it works.

Further, I notice you seem to treat ASCO accreditation as trivial matter. If it's so trivial, then why can't you produce educational qualifications that are ASCO certified?

Why would a student who takes a bridging program that grants him the license to practice optometry in Canada have to prove that the program was up to Canadian standards?

That's not it. The rationale for permitting the IOBP in the first place was that these folks had education backgrounds that were basically similar/equivalent to UW OD, and that a lack of familiarity with Canadian practice was the reason for their gross failure rate. I'm saying it hasn't been established by anyone that UK Bach Opotmetry is equal to the UW OD.

While I do agree that they are hired because of their PhDs, don't you think that in order for them to have completed their PhDs they would had to have had an excellent foundation in optometry? .... I would think an 'excellent foundation in optometry' would be self explanatory.

Again - you haven't established any argument other than "it's the same". As for the first argument - so as long as someone from a given optometry school acquires a PhD, that is therefore proof that their optometry institution and all its graduates are of an established quality? (i.e. equal to UW OD) That's basically the gist of your argument. I can turn around and say, that if it's shown that an individual from a given institution fails the CSAO, that no one from that institution should be eligible to write anymore because clearly their educational background is not equal to a UW OD, whose graduates pass the CSAO at near 100% rates.

 

[Optogal]

Anyway, there is no point in continuing this conversation when there are so many falsehoods and assumptions on your part about how the secondary school system in UK, the optometry entrance requirements for international applicants and how the IOBP program is run.

After high school, I acquired a Bachelor of Science and a Doctor of Optometry degree. Both took 4 years of study. Please enlighten me. What did you do?

 

[syma]

Seems we've resorted to putting words into my mouth.

And you don't need enlightening on the path I took to be a qualified optometrist, as it was already mentioned upstream the requirements to attend as an international student in the UK.

So again,

Kindest regards.

 

[Optogal]

Seems we've resorted to putting words into my mouth.

And you don't need enlightening on the path I took to be a qualified optometrist, as it was already mentioned upstream the requirements to attend as an international student in the UK.

So again,

Kindest regards.

Maybe some, but before you go, please answer point #2 in my post above.

 

[namams]

My impression is that you seem to think it's a moral injustice that UK grads have hurdles to jump in order to practice in Canada. If we're going to delve into morals, I'll chime in with the following.

1. If I go to Australia and they require I prove my competency to them through a bridging program before they allow me to practice, I think it's entirely in their right (legally and morally) to do so. I think it's even fair if they decide they aren't going to recognize my education background. It's their choice, and it's their choice because I chose not to get educated in their country. They have no obligation to me.

2. There's a bunch of new schools in the US opening, all spending vast amounts of time and money to get accredited. Now - another post above concedes maybe UK doesn't teach TPAs as much as ASCO schools. It can be reasonably argued that maybe some UK institutions currently "fail" to meet ASCO standards (that's not the same as saying they are incapable of meeting those standards). Now - these new US schools who are doing their utmost to get up to standard - suppose some of them fail? Students who graduate from those institutions therefore don't get licensed to practice. Why is it fair that these students can't practice optometry, and yet students who graduate from non-ASCO UK institutions can?


Bottom line is your posts speak of an entitlement, that by having an optometry degree from the UK you are entitled to enter any country and that they have the obligation to declare you fit to practice, anything else is morally unjustified. That's not how it works.

Further, I notice you seem to treat ASCO accreditation as trivial matter. If it's so trivial, then why can't you produce educational qualifications that are ASCO certified?

I think we might be misunderstanding each other here. I don't feel entitled - I definitely think I need to prove my competence. I thought that was what the bridging program was for. I don't expect just to be able to practise in Canada after graduating from the UK. It just seems like all the Canadian educated ODs seem to think that they're vastly superior to us. If the licensing body in Ontario says I need to do a 2 year course in order to qualify there, then that's what I'll do; if they say 6 months, then I'll do that and so on. In fact, I wish Waterloo had a bridging program like NECO; that way I could earn an OD by paying domestic fees. I went to England knowing that there was a bridging program I could go through to qualify back in Canada. It made financial sense to me. I thought that this bridging program would bring me up to Canadian standards. After all, it is run by the only English language school of optometry in Canada.

What do you think I'll be lacking after the BSc I completed in Canada (A average), the Optometry degree from England, qualifying as an Optometrist in England, completing the bridging program and then passing the Canadian boards? What do you think we should have to do to qualify in Canada?

 

[Optogal]

The bridging program was supposed to facilitate entry to practice for foreigners possessing qualifications equal to the UW OD. That's in writing in law. It wasn't intended to act as an 8-week remedial course to help supplement for stuff that wasn't learned. Again, the assumption is that the entering educational background is equivalent to the OD. What it has become, is a tutoring program for the CSAO.

What would it take for this problem to go away? Any of the following would basically eliminate all opposition to internationals entering practice in Canada.

1. The international optometry school program is accredited by ASCO.
2. The IOBP is accredited by ASCO.
3. The IOBP is a bridging mechanism that confers the OD degree on those who finish it.

Folks who graduate from US schools not accredited by ASCO don't get to enter practice. Why should UK grads?

As an aside, it's just my opinion but I don't view the CSAO as some hallowed benchmark. Most internationals last prayer on earth is to pass it. UW students pass it with a blink of an eye.

Finally, Waterloo is a world renowned scientific university - why would they set up a shoddy bridging program? Yes, I'm sure it generates income but it's probably a low amount in the grand scheme of things and not worth ruining their reputation.

Actually, what does it tell us that UW chooses not to confer the OD on IOBP graduates? By not doing so, the Waterloo name is not held accountable.

 

[namams]

The bridging program was supposed to facilitate entry to practice for foreigners possessing qualifications equal to the UW OD. That's in writing in law. It wasn't intended to act as an 8-week remedial course to help supplement for stuff that wasn't learned. Again, the assumption is that the entering educational background is equivalent to the OD. What it has become, is a tutoring program for the CSAO.

What would it take for this problem to go away? Any of the following would basically eliminate all opposition to internationals entering practice in Canada.

1. The international optometry school program is accredited by ASCO.
2. The IOBP is accredited by ASCO.
3. The IOBP is a bridging mechanism that confers the OD degree on those who finish it.

Folks who graduate from US schools not accredited by ASCO don't get to enter practice. Why should UK grads?

As an aside, it's just my opinion but I don't view the CSAO as some hallowed benchmark. Most internationals last prayer on earth is to pass it. UW students pass it with a blink of an eye.



Actually, what does it tell us that UW chooses not to confer the OD on IOBP graduates? By not doing so, the Waterloo name is not held accountable.

I'm sure most UK grads pass it with the blink of an eye as well. I know some who've taken it.

Anyways, I guess I shall always be inferior. Might as well just stay in England after I graduate.

 

[Optogal]

Not exactly a blink. Their pass rates aren't as high as UW grads. They are apparently lower than US grads too.

But you got it. You can always stay in England to practice.

What should not happen is for folks to whine as to why they can't practice (or must go through hoops to) in Canada when you don't possess Canadian qualifications. That's just how things work. If I had to get licensed in England, I'd expect the same thing.

As for other folks, Iranian and Philippine grads have entered practice. They are definitely inferior to UW ODs.

 

[Dogod]

This is from ODWire:

The recent college of Ontario bulletin reveals that between May 1, 2010 and Feb. 28, 2011 Ontario licensed 111 optometrists – an exponentially higher number than any previous time period. And this is just for Ontario.

32 USA-educated;
IOBP 28;
2 University of Montreal;

the rest are from UW and some of them graduated years ago and are now returning to practice in Ontario.

We will continue to see an increase in USA-educated OD’s in the years to come (see bottom). A number of IOBP grads are Canadians that have gone abroad to UK, Australia or the Carribean to return via IOBP.

Of the IOBP on this list of 111: only 3 are UK-trained, 1 Australia , 1 S. Africa . 17 are foreign ophthalmologists, 11 are optometry trained.

There are over 100 international grads licensed in Ontario alone. What is surprising is that almost half are foreign ophthalmologists, including the 2 IOBP success stories Dr. Cooper describes in the UW newsletter from the fall of 2008 (one had his license suspended in Jan. 2011).

IOBP by country of education: 26% from the mid east ( Iraq , Iran , Egypt ), but mainly Iraq/Egypt – significant majority are ophthalmologists; 24% educated in the UK , mainly Bradford (all optometrists); 12% from India (half are ophthalmologists); 11% China – almost all are ophthalmologists); others are from S. Africa, Australia , Nigeria , Columbia , Venezuela , Philippines .

Ironically, it is the foreign ophthalmologists who are more likely to be working for Walmart or Hakim despite having less experience in refraction.
Interesting that 7% list as “N/A” regarding their equivalency, so they did not even have to take IOBP. One indicates on her website that she just emigrated and wrote her exams to license 2004. A similar number indicate a “Comparable OD Degree” – isn’t ACOE the only authourity to determine equivalency to a NA OD degree?

A number of them use inappropriate terms in describing their education credentials on resumes and online: “O.D.”; “UW Optometry Class of 20__” Doctor of Optometry”, ect.

There are a few foreign ophthalmologists who keep all their foreign credentials after their name and have added “O.D.” even though they have never taken an optometry degree program in their home country. Technically, IOBP grads cannot use “O.D.” or state they have an optometry degree from UW; IOBP grads are merely allowed to use the “Doctor” title and call themselves “optometrists.”

A number of them seem to be unaware of this. To the public all IOBP grads are equal to NA OD's.

According to:
http://www.opted.org in 2008-09:
There were 410 Canadians in US optometry schools, 111 enrolled in first year. Current stats on the 2009-10 school year indicate 414 Canadians with 99 enrolled in first year.

 

[namams]

Not exactly a blink. Their pass rates aren't as high as UW grads. They are apparently lower than US grads too.

But you got it. You can always stay in England to practice.

What should not happen is for folks to whine as to why they can't practice (or must go through hoops to) in Canada when you don't possess Canadian qualifications. That's just how things work. If I had to get licensed in England, I'd expect the same thing.

As for other folks, Iranian and Philippine grads have entered practice. They are definitely inferior to UW ODs.

You fail to see my point. I'm not whining and complaining. I'm prepared to do whatever it takes. I have no qualms whether I will be as competent as a U of W grad - I know I will be. Currently, what it takes to practice in Canada is to complete the IOBP. If you don't like it, you should try to change it. The College of Optometrists of Ontario or any other province don't seem to see a problem with it.

I suppose you don't have any evidence to support your suggestion that UK grads who have gone through the IOBP provide inferior quality of care. Otherwise I'm sure you would've stated it.