AOA Workforce Study, 2012

[Jason K]

As some of you may know, our glorious AOA decided to drop several million dollars into yet another Workforce Projection study, which was wrapped up over a year ago. They have yet to release the data, which is no surprise. For those of you playing along at home, the AOA did EXACTLY the same thing with the last Optometry Workforce study, conducted in 2000. The study forecasted a major oversupply problem (which was correct), and they didn't even account for the new OD programs that have sprung up in the last 4 years.

If I were looking into optometry, I'd have good reason to call the AOA and demand that the results be shared. If you go out and drop $200K on an OD, and then read the results of the most recent study, you might wish you'd had access to it earlier.

In any case, if you can't get anywhere with the AOA for this new study, go out and dig up the 2000 study, by googling Optometry Workforce Projection (lead author was Alan David, I believe).

If you are still of the mindset that the AOA has no reason to hide optometry's dirty laundry - read the 200 optometry workforce study, and then ask yourself why virtually no one has ever heard of it.

Best,

Jason

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ChocolateRun]

We get that you don't like optometry. Seriously stop spewing your hate for the profession over this board.

There might indeed be an oversupply, but since you are so adamant in telling everyone not to enter optometry that you turn a blind-eye.
1) The ACA (whether you like it or not) will change healthcare in America.
2) There is a build-up in retirement due to the poor economy. People are retiring later now and thus there will be a surge of retirements.
3) The population is growing.
4) Increased elderly population leading to increased health problems.
5) Increased minority population that brings about their risk factors for many diseases.
6) Many women enter the profession due to the flexibility of part-time work. Thus many of the optometrists can count as a "partial" optometrist.

The biggest thing the 2000 study didn't account for was the ACA. And remember, you can manipulate statistics however you want.

So please get off your high horse and stop trolling this board. I'm sorry that you didn't like optometry, but that doesn't mean you have to belittle the profession. You are making lots of really intelligent people who would have otherwise gone into optometry turn away and are in fact doing a disservice to the profession as a result. Yes there are problems with the profession, but there are problems with many other professions. I am not naive to that fact. However your incessant disparagement of optometry is unneeded. You are a essentially a bully whether you like it or not. Like I said, we get that you don't like optometry so just please stop spamming these boards with your hate. It's getting old.

 

[simplybaby]

He's probably going to say "people who hold opinions that are different from your own are not 'trolls.' In most cases, they'll probably be people who are simply more knowledgeable than you. "

 

[Jason K]

Oh, my dear, little chocolate ball. You've so much learn, and based on the fact that you amusingly placed the ACA as your #1 reason for optimism, I can tell you're clearly not above the age of 20, and that you're intoxicated by the Obamaroma that's left over from 2008. The ACA is DEFINITELY going to change healthcare, you're right about that, but if you think it's going to do anything but cause massive headaches for both doctors and patients, you need to step out of the hot box for a few hours. Competence and leadership doesn't come from thin air. The entirety of Obamacare has been one massive debacle after another, and that will continue because of who's been behind it all along.

Go read up on the bronze, silver, and gold plans. Take a look at the deductibles, the co-insurances, the prescription coverage, and the office visit copays (first, you'll need to learn what those terms actually are. Don't feel bad - 90% of the sheep, who voted for Obama, don't know what they are either......but they will, very soon.) Then consider deleting the #1 line item you just listed, as you'll be mortifyingly embarrassed.

That aside, I'm sorry you seem to be so biased in your view of optometry, considering that you've zero experience within the profession. After you've practiced for 8 years, worked in just about every facet of the field, and studied the trends within the profession, I suspect your blissful ignorance will come to an end.

For now, though, you might benefit from doing what I suggested in the original post - go ask the AOA for the 2012 Workforce Study. Then, as a little thought experiment, ask yourself what might happen to the AOA if students started choosing other professions, based on some rather unappealing results from their study.

Also, you might want to go take a bubble bath - you seem rather stressed out about finals.

 

[RadixLuminogen]

I used to disagree with Jason K but the further I get in Optometry school the more I agree with him/her. There will be a lot of disappointed, financially unaware people out there in the next decade or so in many Professions but especially Optometry and Veterinarians. Jason K through our adamant arguments you actually helped me in slipping through the cracks in a way. There are about 10%-20% of our class that will get through with <$50,000 in loans, assuming we all pass including myself. Others will slave away, taking years paying down their average of ~$160,000 loans from OD school. And things are even worse now than when I started. Now new students have no subsidized loans and the tuition has risen higher than inflation even in the last 3 years.

 

[thecgrblue]

I was the exact same as you Chocolate Run, it's frustrating to have things all figured out and be working hard towards your goal and have someone tell you it's a bad idea. The hardest thing to admit is how little we actually know about the profession.

I jumped ship before Jason K even came around. I had 4 acceptances in my hand and was 2 months from matriculating at PUCO. Go to the optometrists you have/are/will shadow and ask them the hard questions and demand they don't sugarcoat it.

I should be a 3rd year OD student, but now I'm an MS1. Taking a gap year or two was the best and most educational decision I've ever made.

 

[Jesse Smith]

I was the exact same as you Chocolate Run, it's frustrating to have things all figured out and be working hard towards your goal and have someone tell you it's a bad idea. The hardest thing to admit is how little we actually know about the profession.

I jumped ship before Jason K even came around. I had 4 acceptances in my hand and was 2 months from matriculating at PUCO. Go to the optometrists you have/are/will shadow and ask them the hard questions and demand they don't sugarcoat it.

I should be a 3rd year OD student, but now I'm an MS1. Taking a gap year or two was the best and most educational decision I've ever made.

Kudos to you, thecgrblue for that decision you made with the gap year.

The average Optometrist annually brings in approximately $115,000 after a few years of practicing yet graduates with ~$120,00+ in loans. How long before realizing Optometry wasn't worth pursuing? I'm not trying to troll, this is a serious question.

I should be the last one to speak, considering I barely passed my basic science classes, haha. (However, I do plan on taking the rest of the pre-reqs and taking it from that point and on).

 

[Commando303]

As some of you may know, our glorious AOA decided to drop several million dollars into yet another Workforce Projection study, which was wrapped up over a year ago. They have yet to release the data, which is no surprise. For those of you playing along at home, the AOA did EXACTLY the same thing with the last Optometry Workforce study, conducted in 2000. The study forecasted a major oversupply problem (which was correct), and they didn't even account for the new OD programs that have sprung up in the last 4 years.

If I were looking into optometry, I'd have good reason to call the AOA and demand that the results be shared. If you go out and drop $200K on an OD, and then read the results of the most recent study, you might wish you'd had access to it earlier.

In any case, if you can't get anywhere with the AOA for this new study, go out and dig up the 2000 study, by googling Optometry Workforce Projection (lead author was Alan David, I believe).

If you are still of the mindset that the AOA has no reason to hide optometry's dirty laundry - read the 200 optometry workforce study, and then ask yourself why virtually no one has ever heard of it.

Best,

Jason

Man, you spend a lot of time in the Pre-Optometry section of the forum, don't you? Most of it seems to be "warning" applicants not to apply.

How many patients a day do you examine, anyway...?

 

[Jason K]

Man, you spend a lot of time in the Pre-Optometry section of the forum, don't you? Most of it seems to be "warning" applicants not to apply.

How many patients a day do you examine, anyway...?

Ummm....let's see, I see approximately [(mumbling)...carry the four, add 5....]...ZERO patients per day. I left optometry for greener pastures, quite some time ago, as a matter of fact.

As far as the "warning" reference. Where have you been for the last 3 years? What did you think I was doing on here, trying to decide if I want to go into podiatry?

Oh, and I'm not quite sure what your definition of "a lot of time" is. If it's about 1 post per 8 weeks, then yes, I spend "a lot of time" on the pre-optometry forum.

 

[KHE]

We get that you don't like optometry. Seriously stop spewing your hate for the profession over this board.

There might indeed be an oversupply, but since you are so adamant in telling everyone not to enter optometry that you turn a blind-eye.
1) The ACA (whether you like it or not) will change healthcare in America.
2) There is a build-up in retirement due to the poor economy. People are retiring later now and thus there will be a surge of retirements.
3) The population is growing.
4) Increased elderly population leading to increased health problems.
5) Increased minority population that brings about their risk factors for many diseases.
6) Many women enter the profession due to the flexibility of part-time work. Thus many of the optometrists can count as a "partial" optometrist.

The biggest thing the 2000 study didn't account for was the ACA. And remember, you can manipulate statistics however you want.

So please get off your high horse and stop trolling this board. I'm sorry that you didn't like optometry, but that doesn't mean you have to belittle the profession. You are making lots of really intelligent people who would have otherwise gone into optometry turn away and are in fact doing a disservice to the profession as a result. Yes there are problems with the profession, but there are problems with many other professions. I am not naive to that fact. However your incessant disparagement of optometry is unneeded. You are a essentially a bully whether you like it or not. Like I said, we get that you don't like optometry so just please stop spamming these boards with your hate. It's getting old.

There are a number of flaws in your assumptions, unfortunately.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that the ACA is the greatest thing ever and it will cover every uninsured patient and will pay great rates to providers.

The number of people in the USA is approximately 320 million. The number of uninsured people is 30-40 million. Multiple studies have shown that the average number of exams performed by optometrists is 1.1 per hour. This number has been consistent for many many years.

Let's make two very large assumptions.......that every single ACA patient gets an exam (not likely) AND that every single one gets it from an optometrist (also not likely.) That means, that AT BEST, the ACA will result in an increase of 10-12% which would push the average number of exams performed by optometrists up to 1.21 per hour.

QUICK! LET'S OPEN FIVE MORE SCHOOLS! lmao

You know what else the 2000 workforce study didn't account for? You know....the one that predicted an oversupply of providers until 2037 and which you say didn't consider the ACA? It didn't predict that there would be 5 more schools pumping out 400 more graduates.

The assumption that the increased number of women in optometry will somehow save us from the already occurring and ever growing oversupply of providers is also a mistake. AMA studies on this issue have shown that the majority of women in health careers only work part time for a relatively short duration during their careers.

 

[RadixLuminogen]

December 17, 2013 1:12 PM
First-Year Law School Enrollment Lowest Since 1977
By Jennifer Smith

First-year enrollment at U.S. law schools plunged to its lowest level since 1977, as students steered away from a career that has left many recent graduates loaded with debt and struggling to find work.

The American Bar Association said on Tuesday that the number of first-year law students fell 11% this year. So far, 39,675 full-time and part-time students enrolled in law school, nearly 5,000 fewer than in 2012.

The drop extends a decline that is now in its third year. More than 52,000 would-be lawyers entered their first year of law school in 2010, an all-time high. Many of those students were thought to be seeking shelter from the economic tumult of the recession.

But even then the job market for newly-minted attorneys was contracting.

Many big law firms laid off junior lawyers during the downturn and slashed expenses as clients facing their own financial troubles pressed for discounts. Some lower-level legal tasks that firm associates used to do, such as document review, are now increasingly farmed out to contract attorneys or legal outsourcing companies that can do the work more cheaply.

“I think the collapse of the job market a few years ago was a surprise to the profession, and to law schools,” said Barry Currier, the ABA’s managing director of accreditation and legal education.

The market remains challenging for recent graduates, some of whom emerge with loans that can total more than $150,000.

Those considering legal careers appear to be paying attention. This fall, approximately two-thirds of the 202 U.S. law schools accredited by the ABA reported declines in first-year enrollment. That slide exceeded 10% at 81 law schools, though the ABA has declined to say which ones.

Law school enrollment grew from the mid-1970s through the 1990s, with first-year enrollment ranging between about 39,000 and 44,000. Those numbers then began to climb more steeply in the early 2000s—for example, first-year enrollment jumped 7.46% in 2002.

“There was a presumption that the market for law school graduates was growing,” Mr. Currier said. “Back when things were ramping up—no one should expect that those numbers were going to be sustainable for a long time.”

The recent downswing has led some law schools to cut staff and trim faculty ranks as they try to balance budgets with fewer tuition dollars.

A handful have lowered tuition, largely through reducing the amount paid by out-of-state students. Some schools have relaxed admissions standards to keep up class size, while others have intentionallyshrunk the number of students they admit so to preserve their standing in law school rankings that factor in entering students’ grades and test scores.

But the news isn’t all bad. For example, this year 27 law schools grew their first-year classes by 10% or more, according to the ABA.

The diminished demand also means less competition among applicants and future graduates, leading some industry observers to wonder whether it’s a smart time to apply to law school.

“Some schools may have corrected and are now in a position to increase their enrollment,” Mr. Currier said. “Some schools are still in the process of correction.”

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-46645


The above was posted in the Dental SDN forums. People are already realizing many degrees are over-valued and choose different trades. There was a guy before we started our first year that made a last minute decision not to attend SUNY. He was accepted and ready to go however he didn't want to be in debt and it might have been a very good decision in his personal situation.