Current Op-school Students....is it normal if:

[Taven7755]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello all….

The question I have has been on my mind for awhile, so I figured I would pose it to my future colleagues for their input. What I want to know is fairly simple: What are/were the grades on an average test like in optometry school for you?

The origin of this question is this: As someone that has undergone 2 years at Nova, I am constantly bothered by some of the grades that we show on our tests as a class. Keep in mind that this is clearly not due to inferior students, as recently we have had some of the strongest incoming classes of all, and have seen a huge number of applicants. Also, the end result, that of taking the NBEO, has shown great work by my alums. Last years class saw 4 people of 104 not pass on the first attempt of Part I, a figure which can compete with any school in the country….with these excuses out of the way, here is the reality.

There are certain classes, or even certain tests that are taken each year rather, where it is accepted for all of us that you will likely fail or barely pass. Our finals in certain classes have seen averages in the upper 60’s for years, and no one seems to notice or really care to change it. My class recently took a test in disease in which 70% of the class got a C or below, with 35% failures (under 70)….this is repeated every year, from the first couple of tests you take as a 1st year all of the way through. It is this reason that drives the fact that more people fail out here than any other school: because if you happen to not do well on a test that saw a high average (you got a 75 when the ave was an 88), you can simply get the class average on the next 2 tests (which every year see a 70’s average) and you will be on the verge of failing…..

My point is that none of this is normal to me, as someone that did a very rigorous undergrad degree at a tough school (engineering at CalTech). We once had a physics course in which the ave was in the low-70’s (a deceiving number; over 75% of the class had failed it)….and the following Monday the academic dean was in our lecture to ask us “what the hell happened?”. His opinion was that if the professor could not teach CalTech engineers to do well on a test, who the hell COULD he teach? We recieved so much respect from the dean about who this professor was dealing with: that being students that would lie down in traffic for their grades.The professor did not teach the class again after that. He was replaced a week later. That is what I am used to….and in my mind, a pharm teacher, disease teacher, etc, that is yearly showing a 75 ave on their test is clearly not an effective teacher. Am I missing something here?

I guess that I write this out of frustration of the fact that many of my friends and classmates live in almost constant pressure of failing out of school here and losing it all. It is spring break now, but under normal times there is NO chance that anyone in my class goes out on a weekend. These people I know here work like dogs for their grades, and I get saddened to see 6 hours of library time for 2 weeks straight translate into just another 75% on the test you were supposed to flop on anyway...A part of me finds that immensely pointless and unfair….tell me what your school is/was like. Does the same thing happen everywhere?

P.S. For the love of God, please don’t give that whole “it’s supposed to be hard/ see what a med school does” argument. It is a fallacy that med schools work that way. (I should know. Both of my brothers are in them right now) Anyway, I want to see another's angle on this…Thank you!

 

[hurricaneuro]

I haven't been on here in a while but you should know you are definitely NOT alone. I'm a first year at SUNY and in all of our classes the average is always in the low seventies. People fail, I have failed....it's all to make you more "strong willed"?

And it's been the hardest change for me. In undergrad, a lot of hard work= lots of good grades (most of the time).

In opto school, lots of hard work= increased probability of maybe knowing some questions on the test

 

[nc2tarheels]

I have been accepted to NOVA. I really loved the area and liked the school, but this is what I've heard about NOVA and is making me question whether I should put a deposit down. I've heard NOVA students saying this forever.

 

[KHE]

Hello all….

The question I have has been on my mind for awhile, so I figured I would pose it to my future colleagues for their input. What I want to know is fairly simple: What are/were the grades on an average test like in optometry school for you?

The origin of this question is this: As someone that has undergone 2 years at Nova, I am constantly bothered by some of the grades that we show on our tests as a class. Keep in mind that this is clearly not due to inferior students, as recently we have had some of the strongest incoming classes of all, and have seen a huge number of applicants. Also, the end result, that of taking the NBEO, has shown great work by my alums. Last years class saw 4 people of 104 not pass on the first attempt of Part I, a figure which can compete with any school in the country….with these excuses out of the way, here is the reality.

There are certain classes, or even certain tests that are taken each year rather, where it is accepted for all of us that you will likely fail or barely pass. Our finals in certain classes have seen averages in the upper 60’s for years, and no one seems to notice or really care to change it. My class recently took a test in disease in which 70% of the class got a C or below, with 35% failures (under 70)….this is repeated every year, from the first couple of tests you take as a 1st year all of the way through. It is this reason that drives the fact that more people fail out here than any other school: because if you happen to not do well on a test that saw a high average (you got a 75 when the ave was an 88), you can simply get the class average on the next 2 tests (which every year see a 70’s average) and you will be on the verge of failing…..

My point is that none of this is normal to me, as someone that did a very rigorous undergrad degree at a tough school (engineering at CalTech). We once had a physics course in which the ave was in the low-70’s (a deceiving number; over 75% of the class had failed it)….and the following Monday the academic dean was in our lecture to ask us “what the hell happened?”. His opinion was that if the professor could not teach CalTech engineers to do well on a test, who the hell COULD he teach? We recieved so much respect from the dean about who this professor was dealing with: that being students that would lie down in traffic for their grades.The professor did not teach the class again after that. He was replaced a week later. That is what I am used to….and in my mind, a pharm teacher, disease teacher, etc, that is yearly showing a 75 ave on their test is clearly not an effective teacher. Am I missing something here?

I guess that I write this out of frustration of the fact that many of my friends and classmates live in almost constant pressure of failing out of school here and losing it all. It is spring break now, but under normal times there is NO chance that anyone in my class goes out on a weekend. These people I know here work like dogs for their grades, and I get saddened to see 6 hours of library time for 2 weeks straight translate into just another 75% on the test you were supposed to flop on anyway...A part of me finds that immensely pointless and unfair….tell me what your school is/was like. Does the same thing happen everywhere?

P.S. For the love of God, please don’t give that whole “it’s supposed to be hard/ see what a med school does” argument. It is a fallacy that med schools work that way. (I should know. Both of my brothers are in them right now) Anyway, I want to see another's angle on this…Thank you!

Don't worry about grades. Just try to learn as much as you can.

Understand that they don't put your GPA on your diploma. I recall in school years and years ago that there were a few instructors who would just give ridiculous tests. It's just the way it is. It isn't necessarily a function of the brightness of the class or even the effectiveness of the teacher. It's usually a function of how they create exams.

Just do the best you can and don't worry about it.

 

[Taven7755]

To NC....I would not say that all of this should sway a decision to come here or not. I DO know for a fact that SCCO (so cal) is run pretty similarly, as I have a very close friend there, but I was wondering if we were alone. If not, then so be it. I signed up for this and I know it....

To KHE...Thank you.

 

[Commando303]

Hello all….

The question I have has been on my mind for awhile, so I figured I would pose it to my future colleagues for their input. What I want to know is fairly simple: What are/were the grades on an average test like in optometry school for you?

The origin of this question is this: As someone that has undergone 2 years at Nova, I am constantly bothered by some of the grades that we show on our tests as a class. Keep in mind that this is clearly not due to inferior students, as recently we have had some of the strongest incoming classes of all, and have seen a huge number of applicants. Also, the end result, that of taking the NBEO, has shown great work by my alums. Last years class saw 4 people of 104 not pass on the first attempt of Part I, a figure which can compete with any school in the country….with these excuses out of the way, here is the reality.

There are certain classes, or even certain tests that are taken each year rather, where it is accepted for all of us that you will likely fail or barely pass. Our finals in certain classes have seen averages in the upper 60’s for years, and no one seems to notice or really care to change it. My class recently took a test in disease in which 70% of the class got a C or below, with 35% failures (under 70)….this is repeated every year, from the first couple of tests you take as a 1st year all of the way through. It is this reason that drives the fact that more people fail out here than any other school: because if you happen to not do well on a test that saw a high average (you got a 75 when the ave was an 88), you can simply get the class average on the next 2 tests (which every year see a 70’s average) and you will be on the verge of failing…..

My point is that none of this is normal to me, as someone that did a very rigorous undergrad degree at a tough school (engineering at CalTech). We once had a physics course in which the ave was in the low-70’s (a deceiving number; over 75% of the class had failed it)….and the following Monday the academic dean was in our lecture to ask us “what the hell happened?”. His opinion was that if the professor could not teach CalTech engineers to do well on a test, who the hell COULD he teach? We recieved so much respect from the dean about who this professor was dealing with: that being students that would lie down in traffic for their grades.The professor did not teach the class again after that. He was replaced a week later. That is what I am used to….and in my mind, a pharm teacher, disease teacher, etc, that is yearly showing a 75 ave on their test is clearly not an effective teacher. Am I missing something here?

I guess that I write this out of frustration of the fact that many of my friends and classmates live in almost constant pressure of failing out of school here and losing it all. It is spring break now, but under normal times there is NO chance that anyone in my class goes out on a weekend. These people I know here work like dogs for their grades, and I get saddened to see 6 hours of library time for 2 weeks straight translate into just another 75% on the test you were supposed to flop on anyway...A part of me finds that immensely pointless and unfair….tell me what your school is/was like. Does the same thing happen everywhere?

P.S. For the love of God, please don’t give that whole “it’s supposed to be hard/ see what a med school does” argument. It is a fallacy that med schools work that way. (I should know. Both of my brothers are in them right now) Anyway, I want to see another's angle on this…Thank you!

I feel this is similiar to the point that can, and frequently is, made in regard to education and grading at any level: do grades — does the ability to meet the rigor or sheer convolutedness of coursework — indicate intelligence and ability, or merely a person's capacity to do well on tests? Maybe that isn't exactly your question, but I feel the two things go together.

Should your tests be designed such the averages (or medians, or whatever the hell measure on which one will focus) are on the higher end? Why have tests where everyone gets 60s or 70s, but then collectively passes, anyway? (I.e., they pass simply because you must structure your program so "average" is able to move forward — you can't consistently hold back 50% of your class, or people begin to get awfully suspicious of your motives.)

I feel, ultimately, it's somewhat moot where the averages lie. Whether most people get an 85% and move on, or get a 60% and do so, is irrelevant. What's of concern is what examinations are asking. I suppose they'll always want to know more than just the stuff you'll "actually use," and I believe this is fine, but, in readying yourself for tests, are you training yourself to think, or are you just shoving an ass-load of numbers and strategies into your head, so you can regurgitate them adequately to get that 85% or 60%?

I feel there are good tests and bad ones, and that this quality isn't so dependent on what's asked or what the average is. There are tests that challenge you to understand what you've been taught, to manipulate it and apply it; and there are those that very explicitly tell you you'll be a trained monkey for a couple of hours, and you'd damned well better jump through exactly the hoops you were told to, in just the way instructed, not because you'll gain anything from any of it, but because that's the way it is and you'll fail if you waver.

Sorry for the probably-verbose reply to your question. To sum up (I guess I could have deleted everything before this, and simply written this one sentence), I think averages matter a lot less than do the test-designs that effect them.

 

[KHE]

Sorry for the probably-verbose reply to your question. To sum up (I guess I could have deleted everything before this, and simply written this one sentence), I think averages matter a lot less than do the test-designs that effect them.

As an instructor, you can set a test where everyone gets an A or one where everyone fails. Neither of those is a good situation.

What you want to do is set a test that allows the top students to separate themselves from the pack.

 

[Farcus]

Hey Not a OD student but PharmD at Nova. I just want to chime in that its a similar structure for other programs as well. Our hardest year is 2nd year, and there are classes with certain tests that are definitely harder than normal but you get through fail/or not and try to do well on the other "doable" tests. I know its the same for the DO program, as i have friends in them. Our first therapeutics test which is a like a combination of everything we learned thus far+specific tx for specific disease = 70 average, and 2nd test similiar but I been told the 3rd and 4th test are way more doable.

 

[Commando303]

As an instructor, you can set a test where everyone gets an A or one where everyone fails. Neither of those is a good situation.

What you want to do is set a test that allows the top students to separate themselves from the pack.

I understand the utility of designing an exam that will create a spread of scores, but such a test still can be constructed well or poorly. If it's done right, people who understand the material and are able to apply it to solve problems will do better than those who don't and aren't; if it isn't, those who've crammed the right facts into their heads and have good ability to retain large amounts of information for long enough to spill on a test, will outperform others. (In the latter situation, also those who simply rehearse well the mechanics of a procedure will be at an advantage over those who approach problems effectively, but have trouble rotely performing series of tasks. This ends up particularly true with practicals [possibly including on Boards], if less so on written tests.)

 

[Shnurek]

I feel there is a general push for OD students nowadays to be educated more comprehensively than OD students of the past because of progressive medicine. I think it is a good thing and I await the intellectual challenge.

In fact an OD I shadowed that is in his 50's/60's said he had to grind the lenses in optometry school which he hated doing lol. I don't think they make OD students do that anymore?

The only thing that popped into the back of my head for NOVA, since it is a private school, is that maybe they are doing it purposely to make students repeat and pay tuition all over, but then a quick logical followup I had was that they would have students coming in anyway. They don't have a shortage of applicants so in fact it would be better to not have students repeat classes and clog them up and just get them graduated ASAP.

 

[Commando303]

[...]In fact an OD I shadowed that is in his 50's/60's said he had to grind the lenses in optometry school which he hated doing lol. I don't think they make OD students do that anymore?[...]

I wish that were part of the curriculum... (no sarcasm).

 

[Shnurek]

I think he might have disliked grinding lenses for the same reason why (most) ophthalmologists dislike refracting. Not because it actually is boring (or it may be to some) but just because it is not their professional focus that they will be paid to do. Personally, I would not mind learning how to grind lenses as I will know what opticians have to do and knowing more about the ins and outs of the entire office is definitely handy.

 

[Commando303]

Personally, I would not mind learning how to grind lenses as I will know what opticians have to do and knowing more about the ins and outs of the entire office is definitely handy.

That's how I feel. I won't be diagnosing or treating most diseases, but I should understand them; similarly, it won't be my job to grind lenses, but it's something (I feel) I should, as someone directly in this field, have a good sense of.

 

[hurricaneuro]

Instead of learning about DNA Polymerase for the billionth time, grinding lenses would make a good substitute 😉

 

[Visionary]

As Farcus eluded to, this seems to be common to most health care programs. I remember certain courses in medical school that were dreaded by the students. Some would still do well, but the average would be quite low. As long as some, even if only a few, are capable of performing well on those difficult tests, they will remain that way. The faculty are typically aware of this. Most who pursue doctoral level training are used to being at the top of the class and to subjects seeming relatively easy to master. Once you're in a class where everyone is like that, you can feel pretty dumb. You're not. As KHE said, work hard, learn as much as you can, and chances are you'll do fine.

 

[pinkshoes]

At UAB, 7 out of the 45 original class of '13 have been been held back a year.
One of those class members failed twice and is gone from the program.
Two members of the original class of '12 have been held back two years. At least three members of class of '12 have failed twice and are gone from the program.
It seems to me as though UAB is accepting more students with the anticipation of some failing out, and some repeating. UAB has really small class sizes, but the administration and professors are unwilling to help a student in need.
A first or second year class may have 47 students, but UAB is only anticipating graduating 40 at a time. The class of '13 is down to 39.

As far as grades go, the class average for ocular pharm was always in the low to mid 70s. However, this particular professor also had daily quizzes, and various assignments that brought grades up. She wasn't a "weed-out professor".

 

[JMU07]

In fact an OD I shadowed that is in his 50's/60's said he had to grind the lenses in optometry school which he hated doing lol. I don't think they make OD students do that anymore?

We learn how to cut and edge lenses at SCO.

Instead of learning about DNA Polymerase for the billionth time, grinding lenses would make a good substitute 😉

Yes. 😀

 

[stoikiometry]

In fact an OD I shadowed that is in his 50's/60's said he had to grind the lenses in optometry school which he hated doing lol.

When you've done it as much as we have you'll hate it too.

 

[Shnurek]

When you've done it as much as we have you'll hate it too.

And you are? Optician? Or optometry student?

 

[DawgOD]

I'm a first year student at SCO, and we have never had a class average less than a 70... most of the time it's in the 80's, high 70's...

I'm glad b/c I dont need that extra stress..

Good luck 2 u all though..

 

[stoikiometry]

Pre-optometry now, optometry student in August. I work at an optometrist office that has an edger. It's good in that some patients that want glasses immediately after their appointment, and want the cheap lenses we keep in stock, can get their new glasses in minutes. Other patients can't be without their glasses so we order uncuts and schedule an appointment for them to come in and I'll edge them while they wait. Most of our normal jobs are ordered uncut lenses that I edge here. Yesterday was one of my busiest days: thirteen pairs. Edging isn't all that I do either; I handle the shipments and paperwork involved for everything that comes in and verifying the full jobs (edged at the lab), even frame repairs. Multitasking is key.

 

[nc2tarheels]

there's no need to fully understand the full process of grinding lenses. Most machines do it with the touch of a button. I have edged, surfaced, and everything in between. A trained monkey can do that job. Seriously. No disrespect, but I've done it for 10 years and there's not much to it. I worked in a lab where I would edge 200 pair in a day, and I've worked in a lab where it's on a much smaller scale. Either way.....there's nothing to it.

 

[Shnurek]

there's no need to fully understand the full process of grinding lenses. Most machines do it with the touch of a button. I have edged, surfaced, and everything in between. A trained monkey can do that job. Seriously. No disrespect, but I've done it for 10 years and there's not much to it. I worked in a lab where I would edge 200 pair in a day, and I've worked in a lab where it's on a much smaller scale. Either way.....there's nothing to it.

I guess that's why *college not required* for opticians lol and they want to understand the physics of light going into the eyes and refract without any didactic education?? Get real.

 

[stoikiometry]

I'm not against the idea of a one-day thing. I just don't want to pay to be a free source of labour.

I would edge 200 pair in a day

I have not experienced a lab but I find that hard to believe, no offense. If you worked 24 hours straight that's eight per hour. Maybe I use the world's slowest edger; the average cycle is maybe a couple of minutes per lens. It's rare a lens fits perfectly the first time, sometimes the frame's curvature doesn't match the lens, sometimes a metal frame is flimsy and loses it's shape when you take the dummies out, a semi-rimless' poly lenses can't be too tight or it'll craze inside the groove in a day, etc. If it's too large I slowly make it smaller, but it takes time to re-cycle - can't risk it being too small. If I'm lucky I could do one pair in ten minutes, if I'm unlucky it's thirty minutes or more. I haven't worked in a lab so I'm interested how a lab environment can edge more than eight per hour.

And to JMU07, what goes on at SCO?

 

[KHE]

I'm not against the idea of a one-day thing. I just don't want to pay to be a free source of labour.


?

Pay to be a free source of labor? Are you kidding me? That's what graduate school IS. 😀

 

[nc2tarheels]

I'm not against the idea of a one-day thing. I just don't want to pay to be a free source of labour.


I have not experienced a lab but I find that hard to believe, no offense. If you worked 24 hours straight that's eight per hour. Maybe I use the world's slowest edger; the average cycle is maybe a couple of minutes per lens. It's rare a lens fits perfectly the first time, sometimes the frame's curvature doesn't match the lens, sometimes a metal frame is flimsy and loses it's shape when you take the dummies out, a semi-rimless' poly lenses can't be too tight or it'll craze inside the groove in a day, etc. If it's too large I slowly make it smaller, but it takes time to re-cycle - can't risk it being too small. If I'm lucky I could do one pair in ten minutes, if I'm unlucky it's thirty minutes or more. I haven't worked in a lab so I'm interested how a lab environment can edge more than eight per hour.

And to JMU07, what goes on at SCO?

I worked in a wholesale lab and ran 6 edgers at one time.The edgers I worked on, did it all. Grooved, polished everything. The machines were top of the line and in MOST cases, I could just pop the lens in.

 

[odieoh]

Don't worry about grades. Just try to learn as much as you can.

Understand that they don't put your GPA on your diploma. I recall in school years and years ago that there were a few instructors who would just give ridiculous tests. It's just the way it is. It isn't necessarily a function of the brightness of the class or even the effectiveness of the teacher. It's usually a function of how they create exams.

Just do the best you can and don't worry about it.

This. Sometimes the tests are just poorly written and sometimes they are made to be incredibly tough by design. If you know the tests are brutal you will study hard. If you know you have to really hit the books to scrape by with a 70%, you will study hard. After the test you may feel you did poorly when you get that 70, but the reality is that likely you learned 90% of the pertinent information in the process. The standardized exam scores you quoted would seem to indicate exactly that. The fact that the test score doesn't exactly reflect your knowledge of the material may be frustrating but knowing the tests are so tough keep you motivated. And if that's the case your professors are succeeding.

 

[Healthnutty]

This. Sometimes the tests are just poorly written and sometimes they are made to be incredibly tough by design. If you know the tests are brutal you will study hard. If you know you have to really hit the books to scrape by with a 70%, you will study hard. After the test you may feel you did poorly when you get that 70, but the reality is that likely you learned 90% of the pertinent information in the process. The standardized exam scores you quoted would seem to indicate exactly that. The fact that the test score doesn't exactly reflect your knowledge of the material may be frustrating but knowing the tests are so tough keep you motivated. And if that's the case your professors are succeeding.

You make a very good point. Nicely stated.

 

[Commando303]

This. Sometimes the tests are just poorly written and sometimes they are made to be incredibly tough by design. If you know the tests are brutal you will study hard. If you know you have to really hit the books to scrape by with a 70%, you will study hard. After the test you may feel you did poorly when you get that 70, but the reality is that likely you learned 90% of the pertinent information in the process. The standardized exam scores you quoted would seem to indicate exactly that. The fact that the test score doesn't exactly reflect your knowledge of the material may be frustrating but knowing the tests are so tough keep you motivated. And if that's the case your professors are succeeding.

. Cramming mountains of information into your head, even successfully, to pass a difficult examination, does not indicate you've learned anything — it indicates you crammed mountains of information into your head, and were able to pull them out well enough to succeed on the test.

In my view, a successful professor is not one who makes you "work hard"; it's one who makes you work hard at the right thing — not at rote-memorization, but at analysis and understanding. The second thing is what's more likely to stick with you, and it's the only one of any real academic and professional value.

 

[odieoh]

. Cramming mountains of information into your head, even successfully, to pass a difficult examination, does not indicate you've learned anything — it indicates you crammed mountains of information into your head, and were able to pull it out well enough to succeed on the test.

In my view, a successful professor is not one who makes you "work hard"; it's one who makes you work hard at the right thing — not at rote-memorization, but at analysis and understanding. The second thing is what's more likely to stick with you, and it's the only one of any real academic and professional value.

If you know of a better system please elaborate. Cramming mountains of information into your head is the only way to get a molehill of information to stick. Then then next time you cram a mountain in there, it will sit on the molehill from the previous time. Eventually your molehill becomes a mountain and you pass your boards. Its a frustrating process but its how its done.

 

[Commando303]

If you know of a better system please elaborate. Cramming mountains of information into your head is the only way to get a molehill of information to stick. Then then next time you cram a mountain in there, it will sit on the molehill from the previous time. Eventually your molehill becomes a mountain and you pass your boards. Its a frustrating process but its how its done.

I wouldn't call my idea of good examinations part of any "system" I could lay out. Simply, some professors design questions that require recall of several "facts" from a very long list, whereas others require students to demonstrate broad understanding of concepts.

I guess I can try to put it this way (to run on with the analogy in play, then, I hope, walk away from it): You can stuff a moutain of data into your head, but is the mountain made up of a number of random beads that stay together only until the end of a test, or of large items of information that cohesively form some sound understanding of medicine?

As for passing boards, that isn't what I'm talking about, here, and I'd rather not conflate the topics.

 

[JMU07]

And to JMU07, what goes on at SCO?

In the ophthalmic optics lab you use the edger to make glasses. The SVOSH club takes them on their trips. Our class and the, I don't know, 25 classes before us used these really old edgers where you had to trace the pattern by hand and all that mess, but I think now they're using new edgers that pretty much do everything for you. Those are really easy to use.

Pay to be a free source of labor? Are you kidding me? That's what graduate school IS. 😀

Yup! What the heck do you think 3rd and 4th year clinic is?

 

[odieoh]

I wouldn't call my idea of good examinations part of any "system" I could lay out. Simply, some professors design questions that require recall of several "facts" from a very long list, whereas others require students to demonstrate broad understanding of concepts.

I guess I can try to put it this way (to run on with the analogy in play, then, I hope, walk away from it): You can stuff a moutain of data into your head, but is the mountain made up of a number of random beads that stay together only until the end of a test, or of large items of information that cohesively form some sound understanding of medicine?

As for passing boards, that isn't what I'm talking about, here, and I'd rather not conflate the topics.

I don't think its conflating topics to mention boards. . .part of what your professors are preparing you for is to be able to pass your boards. Many institutions create their curriculum based around what is supposed to be on the boards. Yes you can jump on your high horse and say they should be only worried about educating you to become good optometrists and tests shouldnt be the focus, but unfortunately boards is part of the process in this country and it is the ultimate measuring stick of your optometric education. So its quite relevant in a discussion about the testing process in optometry school.

As far as your desire for tests that "require students to demonstrate broad understanding of concepts," what does that even mean? That seems to be the catch phrase du jour in education, but give me an example of a good test question that accomplishes that without requiring rote memorization. Unfortunately in any professional program you are going to be faced with a large amount of cold hard facts, and there is going to be rote memorization involved. In my experience any question that asks you to "demonstrate broad understanding" is asked broadly and is susceptible to very subjective grading which opens up a whole new can of worms. You want a test full of questions such as "write an essay on the impact of oblique astigmatism on a patient and how you would approach such a patient in clinic?"

I certainly agree that rote memorization of some material is simply not worthwhile. My personal pet peeve was questions about what chromosome certain genes for diseases are on. If I am able to recognize the signs and symptoms of the disease well enough to say "Hey, I am suspicious that this patient has neurofibromatosis type I," it would take me 5 seconds to look up what chromosome that gene is located on. Memorizing the signs/symptoms is necessary, to me the chromosome is not. But others disagree.

 

[thecgrblue]

. Cramming mountains of information into your head, even successfully, to pass a difficult examination, does not indicate you've learned anything — it indicates you crammed mountains of information into your head, and were able to pull it out well enough to succeed on the test.

In my view, a successful professor is not one who makes you "work hard"; it's one who makes you work hard at the right thing — not at rote-memorization, but at analysis and understanding. The second thing is what's more likely to stick with you, and it's the only one of any real academic and professional value.

That is what my B.S. is in.

 

[Commando303]

I don't think its conflating topics to mention boards. . .part of what your professors are preparing you for is to be able to pass your boards. Many institutions create their curriculum based around what is supposed to be on the boards. Yes you can jump on your high horse and say they should be only worried about educating you to become good optometrists and tests shouldnt be the focus, but unfortunately boards is part of the process in this country and it is the ultimate measuring stick of your optometric education. So its quite relevant in a discussion about the testing process in optometry school.

As far as your desire for tests that "require students to demonstrate broad understanding of concepts," what does that even mean? That seems to be the catch phrase du jour in education, but give me an example of a good test question that accomplishes that without requiring rote memorization. Unfortunately in any professional program you are going to be faced with a large amount of cold hard facts, and there is going to be rote memorization involved. In my experience any question that asks you to "demonstrate broad understanding" is asked broadly and is susceptible to very subjective grading which opens up a whole new can of worms. You want a test full of questions such as "write an essay on the impact of oblique astigmatism on a patient and how you would approach such a patient in clinic?"

I certainly agree that rote memorization of some material is simply not worthwhile. My personal pet peeve was questions about what chromosome certain genes for diseases are on. If I am able to recognize the signs and symptoms of the disease well enough to say "Hey, I am suspicious that this patient has neurofibromatosis type I," it would take me 5 seconds to look up what chromosome that gene is located on. Memorizing the signs/symptoms is necessary, to me the chromosome is not. But others disagree.

I don't feel my horse is very high, here; I'd just like to keep it from sinking in a puddle of incoherence. I think it's conflation, in that preparing one for boards is part of an optometry school's responsibility, but this responsibility is not necessarily coincident with that of providing good education. In this thread, I've thus far addressed my views on the latter; I believe my trying to suddenly mix thet two topics will dilute or destroy what I've tried to explain.

I'm reluctant to play this game wherein I design an ideal test for the sake of an on-line conversation, but I'll try to present an example:

1) On which gene does one find the mutation that most commonly effects "X" disorder?

2) Which of the following symptoms is least likely be presented in a 40-year-old Caucasian woman suffering from "X" disorder?

The former requires you to pull out a piece of information that needn't to represent your understanding of anything. "It's on 15q11"; so what? The latter takes a range of information you've learned and investigates whether you can interpret a potential clinical implication of it.

Personally, I would not mind seeing more so-called "blue-book" examinations in an O.D. curriculum (yes, they take longer to grade than do Scantrons, but we're not here to explore ways to make the professor's job faster), as one might in one's under-graduate life; but, as I tried to show in my above example, I don't believe essay-format is required for a question to test understanding.

As for the problems grading broader questions, yes, there will be increased tendency for subjectivity in the answer-key ("15q11" is 15q11, no matter how you turn it). This is not, however, a sound reason for which to abandon such testing. A professor's time might be ever so slightly pressed upon by a student's asking why her question is inferior to the teacher's, but this would be an opportunity for the professor to explain both the question and its answer to a student who has (and has had to) think about the problem — if the teacher wishes, he even could hold a post-test review session to discuss any questions students wish to. At "worst," the teacher will become convinced the correct answer indeed was inadequately distinct; alternatively, the student will see why her train of thought doesn't work.

Not to be presumptuous, but I hope you don't try to drag the above situation across ~120 students. A well-written test of this nature should not effect an entire class' being lost to why the answer to every question was what it was. As I said, I can design neither a test nor a plan for the sake of this thread, but I do feel what I've laid out is neither wide-eyed nor impractical, and that it is, by and large, how examinations ought to be designed.

*I wrote this entire message before moving on to your final paragraph, wherein I found your example happening to conincide with mine; sorry, but I'm not going back to re-write everything, right now — .

 

[odieoh]

I don't feel my horse is very high, here; I'd just like to keep it from sinking in a puddle of incoherence. I think it's conflation, in that preparing one for boards is part of an optometry school's responsibility, but this responsibility is not necessarily coincident with that of providing good education. In this thread, I've thus far addressed my views on the latter; I believe my trying to suddenly mix thet two topics will dilute or destroy what I've tried to explain.

I'm reluctant to play this game wherein I design an ideal test for the sake of an on-line conversation, but I'll try to present an example:

1) On which gene does one find the mutation that most commonly effects "X" disorder?

2) Which of the following symptoms is least likely be presented in a 40-year-old Caucasian woman suffering from "X" disorder?

The former requires you to pull out a piece of information that needn't to represent your understanding of anything. "It's on 15q11"; so what? The latter takes a range of information you've learned and investigates whether you can interpret a potential clinical implication of it.

Personally, I would not mind seeing more so-called "blue-book" examinations in an O.D. curriculum (yes, they take longer to grade than do Scantrons, but we're not here to explore ways to make the professor's job faster), as one might in one's under-graduate life; but, as I tried to show in my above example, I don't believe essay-format is required for a question to test understanding.

As for the problems grading broader questions, yes, there will be increased tendency for subjectivity in the answer-key ("15q11" is 15q11, no matter how you turn it). This is not, however, a sound reason for which to abandon such testing. A professor's time might be ever so slightly pressed upon by a student's asking why her question is inferior to the teacher's, but this would be an opportunity for the professor to explain both the question and its answer to a student who has (and has had to) think about the problem — if the teacher wishes, he even could hold a post-test review session to discuss any questions students wish to. At "worst," the teacher will become convinced the correct answer indeed was inadequately distinct; alternatively, the student will see why her train of thought doesn't work.

Not to be presumptuous, but I hope you don't try to drag the above situation across ~120 students. A well-written test of this nature should not effect an entire class' being lost to why the answer to every question was what it was. As I said, I can design neither a test nor a plan for the sake of this thread, but I do feel what I've laid out is neither wide-eyed nor impractical, and that it is, by and large, how examinations ought to be designed.

*I wrote this entire message before moving on to your final paragraph, wherein I found your example happening to conincide with mine; sorry, but I'm not going back to re-write everything, right now — .

Well after all our arguing back and forth I actually think we agree for the most part. My main point was that it is not necessarily a bad thing if the class average is 70 on a test. Tough tests motivate people to study. I agree that if the average on a test is 70 because the test was comprised of nit-picky random things that involves memorization of minutia then its less beneficial than questions which require knowledge of several different pieces of information, like the one you quoted.

 

[Commando303]

Well after all our arguing back and forth I actually think we agree for the most part. My main point was that it is not necessarily a bad thing if the class average is 70 on a test. Tough tests motivate people to study. I agree that if the average on a test is 70 because the test was comprised of nit-picky random things that involves memorization of minutia then its less beneficial than questions which require knowledge of several different pieces of information, like the one you quoted.

We probably do share a bit of agreement, about this. I do feel knowing that an exam will be challenging motivates students to learn the pertinent material well; conversely, they are less likely to familiarize themselves with important information they reason will not be tested on. I believe my point in these previous posts has not been that examinations should be designed to be easy, but that they should be made to elicit thought rather than rote regurgitation.

Besides all this, I think it's rather nice two people managed to confront each other on the Internet, without either ultimately calling the other a Nazi or "******ed" 🙂woot🙂.

 

[WindyCityOD]

It seems to me that you think that the students should dictate the level of comprehension that should be required in a course. As an example - if there is a particularly tough semester, and a lot of pressure to keep up with material in three hard classes and four not-so-hard classes- let's say that the students collectively, even unintentionally, to "toss" one of the hard classes to get through the others. Naturally the class average would drop, test scores would drop, and if the instructors took your approach, all they'd have to do is make the future tests easier so the average would go back up (to what? what's appropriate, in your opinion?). So everybody's happy, right? Except that when a patient walks into your office, and has one of the conditions that was taught in that hard class that the teacher made cream-puff to make the average come out right - what now? That's assuming of course that you passed your boards and earned the right to see patients in the first place. Having a high average sometimes means that the teacher is ineffective. Everybody getting a 98% in a class doesn't mean that 98% of the material was mastered. It might mean that the teacher was too lazy to present the material, and so gave a "test review" the day prior so that everybody would pass and the numbers look good.

Make sense?

Another important way to look at performance is to see how your students do on national boards in these "bad" classes. Do students excel in pharm and disease? If so, who cares what the class average is?

 

[Taven7755]

It seems to me that you think that the students should dictate the level of comprehension that should be required in a course. As an example - if there is a particularly tough semester, and a lot of pressure to keep up with material in three hard classes and four not-so-hard classes- let's say that the students collectively, even unintentionally, to "toss" one of the hard classes to get through the others. Naturally the class average would drop, test scores would drop, and if the instructors took your approach, all they'd have to do is make the future tests easier so the average would go back up (to what? what's appropriate, in your opinion?). So everybody's happy, right? Except that when a patient walks into your office, and has one of the conditions that was taught in that hard class that the teacher made cream-puff to make the average come out right - what now? That's assuming of course that you passed your boards and earned the right to see patients in the first place. Having a high average sometimes means that the teacher is ineffective. Everybody getting a 98% in a class doesn't mean that 98% of the material was mastered. It might mean that the teacher was too lazy to present the material, and so gave a "test review" the day prior so that everybody would pass and the numbers look good.

Make sense?

Another important way to look at performance is to see how your students do on national boards in these "bad" classes. Do students excel in pharm and disease? If so, who cares what the class average is?

I think that a few people misconstrued exactly what I was asking....here it is:

There are classes in which EVERY year, the average is awful. For example, we had a test recently in which 70% of the class got a C or below, with 35 failures. What I was wondering was whether this was a normal thing in op school, or if my school was alone in this happening....CLEARLY, that is not the case from my feedback, so I got what I wanted to know.

As for the effectiveness being dictated by the students, I understand that it is not a good model to teach well to. What I am saying is that at a certain point, your students will be working so hard that if you DIDN'T ask "spit on the ball" questions (borrowing that from a former physics teacher I had, who would say "I've got a nasty curve, but I will never spit on the ball") the average would be in the 88-92 range. The profs clearly know this, and there are questions on most test that have less that 20% of the class answering correctly, or about what would happen if you had a dog take it and guess randomly. In my book, that is "spitting on the ball", and it makes school very frustrating sometimes....

 

[WindyCityOD]

I think that a few people misconstrued exactly what I was asking....here it is:

There are classes in which EVERY year, the average is awful. For example, we had a test recently in which 70% of the class got a C or below, with 35 failures. What I was wondering was whether this was a normal thing in op school, or if my school was alone in this happening....CLEARLY, that is not the case from my feedback, so I got what I wanted to know.

As for the effectiveness being dictated by the students, I understand that it is not a good model to teach well to. What I am saying is that at a certain point, your students will be working so hard that if you DIDN'T ask "spit on the ball" questions (borrowing that from a former physics teacher I had, who would say "I've got a nasty curve, but I will never spit on the ball") the average would be in the 88-92 range. The profs clearly know this, and there are questions on most test that have less that 20% of the class answering correctly, or about what would happen if you had a dog take it and guess randomly. In my book, that is "spitting on the ball", and it makes school very frustrating sometimes....

I'm sure it is frustrating. It would be interesting, from a curiosity point of view, who the 20% are that are getting those ballspit questions right. Are they random students? Or the very top students? I would hope that your profs have access to statistical data like that. If the top 20 students are getting it right and the rest aren't, it's a good - if hard - question - and the other students missed out on a detail that the gunners got right. If the people getting it right are random, it might not be a great question. You could ask your profs what they're doing and how they analyze their questions, couldn't you?

 

[cloud99]

Taven -

I get what you are saying. I know someone who was accepted to nova and chose not to go there specifically because of the high failure rate. Sdn posters from nova have reported that by third year, their class had seen 20% of the students fail out.

What constitutes a failing grade at nova? Is it below 65 or below 60?

 

[Taven7755]

Cloud; you must get above a 70%. And if not, you must take a remediation test which, I must add, is usually very passable. For our hardest class last year, 18 people took the retake, and only 2 did not pass.

Also, the failure rate here is, at least for my class, been only about 10 people. Several of these quit for personal reasons much more so than being forced out. I would never recommend someone NOT come here because they think they might fail, for obvious reasons. Also, I DO know that this pays off for us eventually, as last year's class had a 96% Part I pass rate. That was in the top 3 in the country, so I realize that it has an upside.

The downside of course is that you are constantly dealing with people in panic mode over failing, and that gets old. There is kind of an atmosphere of "do this, then we will let you through" that is hard to adjust to. Especially 1st year, you are taking the EXACT class the medical students are taking, so the profs have very little sympathy for you....I have about a month left and I am done w the hard part! 2nd year and its hell is almost over

 

[socal2014]

Passing basic science courses is the least of your concerns.

Wait till you get out in the real world. Many will be scavenging for even the most undesirable jobs, with the continuing oversupply!

 

[Taven7755]

well, look like the village idiot has visited us all again with more simpleton musings like one of those parakeets that only says 3 words....

Seeing as of the 20 4th years that graduated a year ago, 16 of them are working privately, 2 corporate, and 2 of them for Bascom Palmer (a name that to people that aren't op school rejects means something), I am gonna go ahead and disagree with your pathetic ignoramus opinions, as everyone else already does....of the class of Nova 2008's 102 grads, 98 of them are employed (3 are on maternity, one looking) 56% are working privately, and their average salary 3 years after graduation was 96k...we just saw our survey results last month before boards ramping up began... Socal never gives any references to their so-called "facts", refuses to ever tell anyone who they are (in all probability some that here in mid-march is realizing they didn't get in again), and goes into every forum (including ones which ask about school, something they are not in) and parrots the big 3. Oh, I forgot: also, anyone that disagrees is "an idiot" to quote a previous post, and anyone that asks about the profession is told to quit or "throw themselves out of a window", another direct quote.....what I have just described to you is an arrogant, self-righteous, malicious jerk that never gives an opinion of any value to anyone on SDN. It is like that drunk at the next table that won't stop talking.

so no, please don't hijack yet another post with your childish malice. Go find a new group of people to fool into thinking you're not a ignorant sore loser. Thanks

signed, everyone