scco and western students

can you tell me why you went with your school.

Without too much bias I will say that if given the choice, it would be wise to choose SCCO over western.

Practically speaking you'd want to attend the school that is accredited, has a strong alumni base, and established outreach sites during your rotation years. Many practicing optometrists do not appreciate new schools popping up. I found, subjectively, that it was easier for me and my classmates to interact with practicing docs being from SCCO than the Western students.

The program at Western will probably be decent in time, but why be the guinea pig first few classes where they work out the kinks if you can avoid it?

Technologically, Western is very advanced and progressive. But until you start meeting and interacting with future docs from that school, it's hard to judge how good the program is. Let's see how the class of 2013 turns out.

Factually, the students of Western's entering class have lower GPAs and OAT scores on average compared to SCCO. Because it's not possible to compare the "social, leadership" qualities of candidates going to either school, I will just say academically the students at SCCO are better based on those facts.

If I were a pre-opt, I would only consider Western over SCCO if given a substantial scholarship.

Penguin 2012:

First of all, I think you should stick to commenting about YOUR own school experience… You DON'T speak for WesternU students. I've personally found some of your comments MISLEADING. Having attended most of the local optometry society meetings as a WesternU representative, I can reassure readers that WesternU students have NO problem interacting and networking with the local practicing ODs. If you really want to know more about the WesternU experience and its students, then I highly recommend that you ask the students who personally go there.

WesternU optometry is a new program, so it's definitely to their advantage if WesternU optometry students can network with both local and non-local practicing ODs earlier in their career. That's why WesternU participates in clerkship programs in these practicing OD and OMD offices, so that WesternU students get an opportunity to NOT only improve their clinical skills, but also to NETWORK with the practicing ODs and OMDs. In addition, students are invited to the local optometry society meetings, which is another way to network with local ODs. However, WesternU's clerkship program is what makes its program unique in that it allows earlier exposure to patient care. Not only are 1st year students allowed to perform some of the technical entrance exams, but more importantly they are learning how to think like DOCTORS! For example, based on a patient's chief complaint and problem based exam findings, students are challenged to propose a feasible treatment plan based on their differential diagnoses. Of course, 1st year students are not expected to know most of the pathology or binocular findings, but just learning the thinking process by which an experienced preceptor OD or OMD treats a patient really accelerates the student's learning curve.

Finally, are you that sophomoric to think that an established OD or any potential employer for that matter would select a newly graduated OD based ONLY on school reputation as a potential employee? There are other more important factors that must be taken into consideration. I don't know if you know this concept, but hiring a potential employee really comes down to what YOU can do for them and their patients and their familiarity with your personality and work ethic, and how much compensation you are willing to accept for your efforts…your grades and school attended is the last thing they look at.

At the beginning of the application process, I definitely had SCCO clearly ranked ahead of Western. I'm from Southern California, and I wanted to stay here for school and my career, so those were the two schools I applied to. I got in to both, and I'll tell you about my experiences with both.

Western's interview process is a full-day, information-filled, and exhausting process. You learn about their curriculum in detail- all four years, even though they had first year students!- and you meet lots of their staff. You tour the facilities, talk to current students, and interact with the other interviewees. I was thoroughly impressed by the staff and the facilities, and one of the things that jumped out at me was that the staff was very personable and motivated to make Western a top notch program. The amount of effort they put into the interview process- for people that weren't even accepted yet!- was really outstanding. At the end of the day, one of the professors called me into a room privately to talk and give me my acceptance letter. It was just all very personal, and they made me feel welcome, and I had full belief that the program at Western would be great. As far as accreditation goes, like they said during the interview, the school is as far along in the accreditation process as possible, and seeing the facilities and faculty in place, I don't think there's any chance they don't get accredited right on schedule- no school has ever been denied accreditation before.

So all in all, Western definitely narrowed the gap with that showing, so I had to adjust my rankings to 1a, 1b rather than clear 1, 2.

All that said, here's why I'm attending SCCO this fall.

I made a list of pros and cons. I realized two things. First, both Western and SCCO are great schools, and I had full confidence that I'd come out with excellent training either way. Second, whereas Western had some clear cons, I really couldn't come up with any major ones for SCCO. For me, SCCO was the safer choice out of the two, and with 100+ years of history, who's going to argue with that? That's the major difference between the two- established alumni and connections that are just clear advantages SCCO has over Western.

Then there are the little things. I like Fullerton more than Pomona. It's closer to home, I can go to Angels games that are 10 minutes away, and it's not far from where I went to college (in Irvine). I like the SCCO campus more because there's more green foliage than at Western. I like that I don't have to buy a tablet PC for SCCO, but I need to get one for Western.

If you're keeping score, here's where Western trumps SCCO, in my opinion. Western has some amazing facilities; state-of-the-art everything, from the lab rooms, lecture halls, study rooms, and whatever you can find. The interdisciplinary learning is fascinating as well- maybe one of the most intriguing prospects of attending Western. Living costs are a little cheaper in the area of Western. The whole vibe at Western feels more intimate and personal than at SCCO, where it feels a little political and uptight at times.

Anyways. I could go on for quite some time about this, but I tried to get most of my thoughts out about it. Hope that this helped a little. I truly think that both schools are great, and you won't be kicking yourself in the future by choosing one or the other. Like I said, I chose SCCO because it was the choice with a lot of pros and very few cons, so it was the safer, more logical choice for me. Honestly I know I would have been happy going to either school, but alas, you can only go to one!

@geh - I was the same way! Weird how you thought it would be an easy decision, but after you see the new schools, I was WAY impressed with them. More than I ever thought I would be. Proud to have one of them in CA, bummed it means they'll be pouring more ODs into CA. 😛

WUCO 2013 said:

Penguin 2012:

First of all, I think you should stick to commenting about YOUR own school experience… You DON'T speak for WesternU students. I've personally found some of your comments MISLEADING. Having attended most of the local optometry society meetings as a WesternU representative, I can reassure readers that WesternU students have NO problem interacting and networking with the local practicing ODs. If you really want to know more about the WesternU experience and its students, then I highly recommend that you ask the students who personally go there.

WesternU optometry is a new program, so it's definitely to their advantage if WesternU optometry students can network with both local and non-local practicing ODs earlier in their career. That's why WesternU participates in clerkship programs in these practicing OD and OMD offices, so that WesternU students get an opportunity to NOT only improve their clinical skills, but also to NETWORK with the practicing ODs and OMDs. In addition, students are invited to the local optometry society meetings, which is another way to network with local ODs. However, WesternU's clerkship program is what makes its program unique in that it allows earlier exposure to patient care. Not only are 1st year students allowed to perform some of the technical entrance exams, but more importantly they are learning how to think like DOCTORS! For example, based on a patient's chief complaint and problem based exam findings, students are challenged to propose a feasible treatment plan based on their differential diagnoses. Of course, 1st year students are not expected to know most of the pathology or binocular findings, but just learning the thinking process by which an experienced preceptor OD or OMD treats a patient really accelerates the student's learning curve.

Finally, are you that sophomoric to think that an established OD or any potential employer for that matter would select a newly graduated OD based ONLY on school reputation as a potential employee? There are other more important factors that must be taken into consideration. I don't know if you know this concept, but hiring a potential employee really comes down to what YOU can do for them and their patients and their familiarity with your personality and work ethic, and how much compensation you are willing to accept for your efforts…your grades and school attended is the last thing they look at.

Click to expand...

I think it is to the advantage of any student, whether from SCCO or Western, to network as much as possible. To me this is not distinct of Western.

I agree with you entirely that until you interview, and very importantly, speak to the students (1st-4th from SCCO, and the 1st years at Western), that it is impossible to pass on perfect judgement.

Western was not around when I applied to opt school, but I think I would probably act like Geh. The facilities at Western are top notch no doubt, and the curriculum probably will be just as rigorous as SCCO. But granted the choice between two programs with essentially the same tuition, it makes more sense to attend the school that is accredited and more established. That is all I am saying.

I learned a lot from my upper class mentors during optometry school, they were a wealth of information - I think great mentorship helped me a lot at SCCO. At Western, there would be only 1 class that could provide that type of mentorship, and zero alumni who you could more readily reach out to after you graduate.

I am not sure how taking case histories, coming up with differentials, is really is that much of a grandiose thing that would separate Western from any other school - so I am unsure why you bring that up.

The average student entering Western in 2009 had a 3.11 GPA, if you need a backup or unsure you can make it into SCCO I would definitely apply as it is probably easier to be admitted. Hopefully I have given objective comparisons to the OP.

Penguin2012:

You NEED to re-read my original post. Apparently, you don't really understand what the concept of mentorship and/or networking really means. ANYONE can be your mentor.

Anyways, here's my own personal experience...

My first WesternU clerkship site experience was at a vision therapy practice that is owned and run by a SCCO alumnus. On my first day, he commented that WesternU's optometry program is definitely unique because it allows 1st yr optometry students earlier exposure to actual clinical practices/sites. What was also important was that it allowed me the opportunity to network with this highly experienced OD. To him, it didn't matter if I went to SCCO or any other optometry school for that matter. His goal was to expose me to the clinical and business aspects of VT. He was a great mentor to me, and still is for many reasons. For instance, he taught me how to properly study patient case files, and analyze the exam findings (he explained why he did certain tests were performed to rule out certain binocular conditions). I was able to see and learn how to treat a variety of binocular vision problems. He and his VT tech taught me how to deal with some of the difficult and challenging patients. In addition, he gave me some great advice on how to run a VT practice. Overall, I had a great learning experience. I still interact with him at the monthly optometry society meetings, and seek his advice on optometry related topics.

What's unique about WesternU is that the clerkship program allows WesternU students to be trained to think like a doctor at a faster pace through earlier clinical exposure guided by experienced preceptors. In addition, it allows students to develop important working relationships with these practicing ODs and OMDs because they get an opportunity to learn about you and vice versa.

Finally, just to let you know...the WesternU optometry curriculum is VERY rigorous! I also have friends from SCCO (current and alumni) and other optometry schools who would agree. I cannot believe the 1st year is almost over...just two more weeks...my classmates and I have definitely learned a great deal in such a short amount of time...it has been a great experience so far!!!

I still find most of Western U's "differences" to be marketing hype.

I still personally feel that UIW, MidWestern, & Western were not necessary and that their development wasn't initiated by optometrists, but instead by profit seekers. Their existence weakens the profession and when they start to graduate OD's, it will really harm the grads of the other schools who have to compete for jobs with them.

That being said, they're here now, and can't be stopped.
But choosing one of them if you're accepted anywhere else (unless there's a huge fincancial or geographic reason) is a mistake. Way more risks and unknowns and a large percentage of your classmates will be there as a last choice.
You're going to be viewed by many as the bottom of the barrel.

optsuker said:

I still find most of Western U's "differences" to be marketing hype.

But choosing one of them if you're accepted anywhere else (unless there's a huge fincancial or geographic reason) is a mistake. Way more risks and unknowns and a large percentage of your classmates will be there as a last choice.

Click to expand...

I agree that the risk outweighs the rewards. Until 2013 rolls in, no one can make judgments about the quality of Western curriculum until they graduate their first class.

I'm not an SCCO cheerleader by no means. We have many of our own problems. But to choose a school over another school that is 1) accredited, 2)established with proven results 3) excellent board score passing rates, 4)extensive alumni base, 5)active student government and 6) more patients who regularly attend the clinic 7) with students that are, on average, academically superior to another school cannot be argued. Both schools are located in relatively the same area and same tuition, so that is a nonfactor.

The SCCO clinic sees over 12,000 patients in a year. It takes years, and years to build that patient base, especially with the more unique patients. Western's clinic will get there, but don't be surprised if on occasion, and depending on the economic climate, that the students at western end up examining each other when the patient schedule is light during assigned clinic time in 2011 when the class 2013 starts working more in the clinic.

The clinic time and patient base needs to be an important factor when deciding schools, you don't learn very much examining other students, that's for sure!

Is anything I said really that controversial?

Hello optometrydr,

I believe that Western will _eventually_ be a great school. Unfortunately, the jury's still out about the quality of Western's optometry program today. I would choose almost any of the established schools over Western because although they might have a 100% pass rate for NBEO1, they also might have a 50% pass rate. (We just don't know.) At SCCO, the pass rate is over 90% for NBEO 1, 2, and 3. (The actual numbers are higher, but all I can remember is that they were all in the nineties.)

----------------------------------

About employability/clinical skills...

Wuco is right that personality goes a long way in terms of employability. Nobody here is saying any different. But I think clinical skills are important, too.

Honestly, what gives you more confidence in their clinical program?

1) Western's Clinical Program web page: http://prospective.westernu.edu/optometry/clinical

"Coming Soon"

or

2) SCCO's Information Page: http://www.scco.edu/visitors/index.html

"SCCO's Outreach Clinical Program has been cited by the Accreditation Council on Optometric Education of the American Optometric Association as 'unparalleled in optometric clinical education.'"

If the accreditation council says SCCO's clinical education is good, then I would believe it. This organization is very knowledgeable about optometry, clinical skills, and has been to every school so they are in a good position to compare programs.

Also, I don't see how Western can provide students with enough patients to work on. It's not like you can open up a new optometry clinic and patients just start flooding in. This is going to be a challenge for Western, and I am interested to see how they overcome it.

----------------------------------

Next... About "interdisciplinary learning":

Like Optsuker, I also feel that alot of Western's "differences" is marketing hype.

I am not a fan of "interdisciplinary learning." To me, this is a fancy way of saying "We don't want to make a course specific to optometry students, so we're going to lump everybody together".

My girlfriend goes to medical school. She studies a lot of the same subjects I do like anatomy, physiology, pharm, etc. Unfortunately, when I try to study with her, I find that our curriculums don't cover the same things in the same way, and our classes focus on different topics. So, we can't really quiz each other too much.

SCCO's medicine, pharm, anatomy, neuro and physiology courses have a heavy emphasis on how these things affect eyes and vision. Our doctors teach topics that are likely to show up on our boards at an appropriate level for optometry students. They also try to make it clinically relevant to optometry.

My girlfriend is taking her medical school boards soon, and she tells me that she wished the non-clinical/more-researchy lecturers hadn't wasted her time making her learn minutiae that wasn't relevant. She feels that her time could have been better spent focusing on the meat and potatoes of medicine that's covered on her boards or is clinically relevant. She envies the fact that every class I take is optometry focused, or at least has a strong optometry slant.

That's why I think it's advantageous to learn things with an optometry slant.

----------------------------------

Next... About "Interprofessional Education (IPE) Case-Based Learning":

Again, I think it's hype. I don't need to spend hours learning about how nurses, veterinarians, physical therapists, podiatrists and physician assistants bring different things to the table. That could be a 1 hour lecture. Max. If you're concerned about learning when to refer out or when to call a pharmacist, this is all covered in your normal coursework.

Spending a lot of time doing interprofessional case-based learning takes away from other things-- Like doing optometry case-based learning! Or practicing clinical skills!

----------------------------------

Next... Clerkship?

My hype-alarm is going off again. Sounds like shadowing on steroids. By week 5, when clerkship begins, Western has covered the following topics: "Principles & Practice of Optometry: Vision screening" (4 weeks), "ocular anatomy" (4 weeks), "practice management" (1 week), "optics" (1 week), "gross anatomy" (2 weeks), "Intro to Medicine" (1 week), and "Physician & Society" (2 weeks).

Suddenly they're "properly studying patient case files, and analyzing the exam findings"? C'mon. Let's be real here. I simply don't believe that this is helping Western students "to think like a doctor at a faster pace through earlier clinical exposure" than the things any other optometry school does.

At SCCO (and I bet at most other schools), we get in clinic early first year, observe, maybe help out a little, and wrap it up with discussions with doctors. But we don't advertise that as a great part of our program. That's just getting our feet wet!

We give our first real exams to real patients in Spring quarter of our second year. I think this is a good time because giving a good exam requires a minimum level of knowledge. My second patient complained of a white mark on her cornea, eye pain, eye fatigue, dry eye, blur, diplopia and vision loss. I was able to diagnose and propose a treatment plan for everything. (I am proud of this, but I'm sure many experienced docs are laughing now.) I do not believe I could have done this much earlier.

----------------------------------

However, I don't want to knock Western too much...

I do like Western's Neuro focus. I think Western is showing leadership here by focusing on it. I personally believe that they will have no problem getting accredited and many great doctors will come from Western. Western has a lot of great things going for it, and it's future is bright.

But if I had to choose between Western and SCCO today, I would choose SCCO.

Well said.

Just to clarify a couple things about the interdisciplinary learning at Western, it's to my knowledge that it does not take away from optometry-specific learning.

It's not that every anatomy, neuro, and physiology class is taken with the other schools. The unique structure of the curriculum allows the optometry students to join and leave classes mid-semester, which means that the optometrists take their own more rigorous eye anatomy class while joining the other disciplines for all the other aspects of anatomy for the rest of the semester. So actually, they take the mixed classes for non-eye stuff, and then they'll take the optometry-specific class for anything about the eyes. Not a bad deal, if you ask me.

The interprofessional case-based learning course is pretty much what you suggested, actually. I'm not a Western student, so I don't remember how often they meet a week, but I wouldn't be surprised if you hit the nail on the head that it's once a week for an hour. It's a seminar, so it's laid back, and I'm not even sure you get a grade for it. The main purpose is for the classes to work together a bit and to be more knowledgeable to assist your patients in the future. It's honestly a small part of their curriculum that they emphasize to make it seem like a major part of it.

One of the ideas they drove home at Western was that they felt that interdisciplinary care is the future of health care, and they were going with the trend. Though this is speculation, and it's anybody's guess how health care will look in 10-15 years, I like that they're thinking ahead to try to get their students prepared and assimilated for the future.

Anyways. I'm just trying to get some useful information out there for people thinking about SCCO and Western- I'm trying to be as unbiased as possible and just share my personal experience because this was my own decision last month, so I definitely have my thought process fresh in my mind. As I said before, I did choose SCCO, but I'm definitely not saying everybody should make the same decision as me given that choice.

I know this is an old thread, but i have a question.

Do you guys think that where you graduate from (western or SCCO) has any bearing on your future job? Probably not with private practice, but I'm talking about working for other OD's or OMD's or even in a corporate setting?

One doc that I was talking to said that usually it wouldn't matter THAT much, but it would definitely help to graduate from a school that has a reputation of graduating good doc's.

What do you guys think?

Some ODs out there question the quality of grads from new schools, while others have more faith about the new schools. I believe all schools are there to help achieve your goal, the most important thing is how far are you pushing yourself to be a first rate OD. Graduate from a reputable school is a plus, but I am sure there will be offices willing to take grads from the new schools. And as a patient, I'd care about the quality and capability of the doctor more than which school he/she graduated.

I think the best education available is not done in the classroom lecture halls, but in the clinic when taking care of patients.

Two of my classmates mentioned it but I will stress that it is extremely important to have a clinic with a steady flow of patients.