Do veterinary technicians/assistants get bored with their job after awhile?

[sunnex3]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'll agree with this. The amount of work to pay ratio doesn't seem right. Especially given that the clinics wouldn't run without dedicated techs. And if they were treated better or compensated better they might be inclined to stick with it

but i also think this would require ALL states to require techs to be licensed...i've worked in VA and in DC, where the licensing laws are different...in DC you definitely don't have to be licensed to do technician duties such as anesthesia, or placing IV catheters or handling controlled drugs. but in VA, where i have my full time job right now at a specialty hospital, i'm only allowed to provide nursing care, draw blood, but never anything more "technical" such as placing catheters, intubating, looking at things under a microscope etc. but this is reflected in the pay as well (i.e. i'm paid $15/hour but the licensed people are probably paid almost 2x as much as me). that being said i also have a bachelor's degree and am applying to vet school right now.

and not to open up the whole discussion about the importance of technical skills as a vet...but i think that requiring everyone to be licensed to perform technician duties would not help pre-vet students...i got all my technical experience through my job and as much as you can learn the practical technical stuff in vet school, i'm one of those who think those technical skills are extremely important as a vet, especially when clinics are short-staffed as they are these days. (but this is a whole another topic)

 

[PppermintTwist]

When I applied to school to become a RVT, I was told that techs can make minimum wage and up. The techs who make the most work as reps for pharmaceutical companies. Two clinics that I volunteered at paid their techs a little more than minimum wage (to keep them around). At the time of asking, minumum wage was $7.60. This clinic was paying their techs $14/hour.

Wage is going to change based on where you are and years of experience. I know techs that make 16/17 an hour.

 

[PppermintTwist]

but i also think this would require ALL states to require techs to be licensed...i've worked in VA and in DC, where the licensing laws are different...in DC you definitely don't have to be licensed to do technician duties such as anesthesia, or placing IV catheters or handling controlled drugs. but in VA, where i have my full time job right now at a specialty hospital, i'm only allowed to provide nursing care, draw blood, but never anything more "technical" such as placing catheters, intubating, looking at things under a microscope etc. but this is reflected in the pay as well (i.e. i'm paid $15/hour but the licensed people are probably paid almost 2x as much as me). that being said i also have a bachelor's degree and am applying to vet school right now. and not to open up the whole discussion about the importance of technical skills as a vet...but i think that requiring everyone to be licensed to perform technician duties would not help pre-vet students...i got all my technical experience through my job and as much as you can learn the practical technical stuff in vet school, i'm one of those who think those technical skills are extremely important as a vet, especially when clinics are short-staffed as they are these days. (but this is a whole another topic)

I do think that all states should require licensing. I agree that it would not help a lot of pre-vet students. I am a pre-vet student though, and I got my license first before ever working at a veterinary clinic. It doesnt particularly slow you down in getting your pre-vet courses either and is a useful degree for working while trying to get into vet school and getting valuable experience. It opens up opportunities in the field to get experience and start doing technical things sooner such as anesthesia monitoring, differentials, IVC placement, etc...

Technical skills as a vet are important to an extent, in my experience vets that tech'ed are better at placing IVC and restraining, but a lot of them straight up forget a lot about what it is like to be a technician. When we're short staffed one of the doctors I work with will help with nursing care and treatments, and another will off and on but never writes any of it down in the patients chart. So having a vet with technical skills hasn't helped out my practice where we have anywhere from 12-20 in house patients. ( We can be going non-stop all night to care for the patients while the vet on duty reads for example... )

The technicians are there to help keep things running smoothly. The vet sees the animal and requests the diagnostics then can move on to the next patient in need of care. When done with that patient they can return to the first and see the results and come up with an appropriate treatment plan.

Technicians are underutilized (especially by older veterinarians not used to having them ). Maybe clinics wouldnt be understaffed if their technicians were respected and used to their full potential (and paid for it).

Maybe it would be better for pre-vet students to have to get licensed as a technician first. That way they learn the most from their experience and the patients get the topmost care.

Like I said...very opinionated on this...😀

 

[krrobin]

Technicians are underutilized (especially by older veterinarians not used to having them ). Maybe clinics wouldnt be understaffed if their technicians were respected and used to their full potential (and paid for it).

Maybe it would be better for pre-vet students to have to get licensed as a technician first. That way they learn the most from their experience and the patients get the topmost care.

Like I said...very opinionated on this...😀

The more vets have to pay technicians, the less available positions there are due to lack of funds.

I don't think pre-vet students should have to be licensed vet techs first... that adds about an extra two years onto an already long path. Plus, not everywhere has a program for that. Most of those classes, while useful, do not apply to any requirements for vet schools. Medical doctors don't have to spend time as nurses before they go to medical school.

I just don't think its practical. Non licensed vets can be just as proficient as licensed when they are taught correctly by their peers. I don't mean they should do all of the same things, but its not necessary for all skills. For example, I can do a jugular blood draw better than one of the licensed techs I work with.

 

[CorporateFatCat]

I do think that all states should require licensing. I agree that it would not help a lot of pre-vet students. I am a pre-vet student though, and I got my license first before ever working at a veterinary clinic. It doesnt particularly slow you down in getting your pre-vet courses either and is a useful degree for working while trying to get into vet school and getting valuable experience. It opens up opportunities in the field to get experience and start doing technical things sooner such as anesthesia monitoring, differentials, IVC placement, etc...

Technical skills as a vet are important to an extent, in my experience vets that tech'ed are better at placing IVC and restraining, but a lot of them straight up forget a lot about what it is like to be a technician. When we're short staffed one of the doctors I work with will help with nursing care and treatments, and another will off and on but never writes any of it down in the patients chart. So having a vet with technical skills hasn't helped out my practice where we have anywhere from 12-20 in house patients. ( We can be going non-stop all night to care for the patients while the vet on duty reads for example... )

The technicians are there to help keep things running smoothly. The vet sees the animal and requests the diagnostics then can move on to the next patient in need of care. When done with that patient they can return to the first and see the results and come up with an appropriate treatment plan.

Technicians are underutilized (especially by older veterinarians not used to having them ). Maybe clinics wouldnt be understaffed if their technicians were respected and used to their full potential (and paid for it).

Maybe it would be better for pre-vet students to have to get licensed as a technician first. That way they learn the most from their experience and the patients get the topmost care.

Like I said...very opinionated on this...😀

I just have to say that some of the best technicians I know are not RVT's. Of course, these are people who have been in the business for over a decade and learned most of everything they know on the job. I don't think every tech needs to be certified, but I do believe in paying dues.

I don't think someone hired immediately who has little to no "tech" experience should be trained to be a tech. My technical skills have all been developed because I observed them first...many, many, many times.

I don't disagree with a two year degree to get a vet tech liscense, but it is not ideal for pre-vets. Afterall, vet tech and veterinarian are two different careers.

 

[Dsmoody23]

Technical skills as a vet are important to an extent, in my experience vets that tech'ed are better at placing IVC and restraining, but a lot of them straight up forget a lot about what it is like to be a technician. When we're short staffed one of the doctors I work with will help with nursing care and treatments, and another will off and on but never writes any of it down in the patients chart. So having a vet with technical skills hasn't helped out my practice where we have anywhere from 12-20 in house patients. ( We can be going non-stop all night to care for the patients while the vet on duty reads for example... )

...

Maybe it would be better for pre-vet students to have to get licensed as a technician first. That way they learn the most from their experience and the patients get the topmost care.

Like I said...very opinionated on this...😀

I think the human med. model is the ideal we should all be shooting for, to most extents.

There are incremental steps, both in terms of responsibility and compensation, each with a different degree of school and evaluation for human nurses.

It's beneficial that there are opportunities for a 'nurse' to start from scratch and work up to a position comparable to a tech, with comparable pay. The real problem with the current organization, in states that don't require certification for tech. tasks, is that many vets would rather train a non-cert. 'tech' than pay for a real one.

At my hospital, for example, we have techs with no degree, 2 year associates, and 4 year bachelors degrees. Yet the techs with advanced schooling make relatively similar salaries, and are always the first ones to lose hours when business gets light. Equally, the non-cert. techs have been trained to do things the hospital way instead of the official, textbook methods, which are often at odds with doctor preference.

The human med. model, with these people being properly paid and valued for their knowledge, would be ideal.

--

Otherwise, from one of your other points, it seems like there needs to be a very clear line between what techs are responsible for and what doctors are asked to do. If it's busy, it's totally appropriate that the vet helps out with tech tasks. But I've never felt bothered by a vet asking me to do a blood draw or procedure that they obviously have time to do. It's not their job.

If your vet is in the office reading while you take care of your specific work, that exactly how the division of labor is supposed to work. You wouldn't expect one of your docs to run back and walk dogs or clean kennel cages if your kennel staff was busy, and there's no reason for them to pitch in on delegated tech tasks.

 

[bunnity]

I agree with Dsmoody. The vet tech career should be modeled on what is best for the animals and what is best for vet techs. Not what is best for pre-vets.

 

[PppermintTwist]

Otherwise, from one of your other points, it seems like there needs to be a very clear line between what techs are responsible for and what doctors are asked to do. If it's busy, it's totally appropriate that the vet helps out with tech tasks. But I've never felt bothered by a vet asking me to do a blood draw or procedure that they obviously have time to do. It's not their job.

If your vet is in the office reading while you take care of your specific work, that exactly how the division of labor is supposed to work. You wouldn't expect one of your docs to run back and walk dogs or clean kennel cages if your kennel staff was busy, and there's no reason for them to pitch in on delegated tech tasks.

I made the comment based about the doctor reading based on what someone else had said about how because a veterinarian with technical skills could help out with technical duties because of the understaffing of veterinary hospitals. I dont expect doctors to walk the dogs and do laundry.

Doing a technician degree first is helpful. For tech school I had to take microbiology, chemistry, ANIMAL anatomy and physiology ( some bachelors degree schools only have human anatomy) and a lot of my other classes counted for electives when I transferred to my bachelors degree. Also most of the classes are veterinary field related so would be helpful when going onto vet school. Cytology, anesthesia monitoring, IVC placement, etc. So if you did tech school and then completed the rest of your requirements you wouldnt be behind. Maybe an extra year to finish your bachelors degree, but you dont actually need that to get into vet school.

There is a pre-vet student shadowing a vet where I work. She shadows the veterinarian, she doesnt do technician stuff. She is there to learn the veterinarian aspect of the field of vet med.

To borrow from other peoples comments about how doctors dont have to become nurses first. You can't get taught on the job to become a nurse...and that is what a technician is, plus anesthesiologist, radiologist, etc... The field shouldnt be held back because its not convenient for pre-vet students....

 

[sunnex3]

I made the comment based about the doctor reading based on what someone else had said about how because a veterinarian with technical skills could help out with technical duties because of the understaffing of veterinary hospitals. I dont expect doctors to walk the dogs and do laundry.

Doing a technician degree first is helpful. For tech school I had to take microbiology, chemistry, ANIMAL anatomy and physiology ( some bachelors degree schools only have human anatomy) and a lot of my other classes counted for electives when I transferred to my bachelors degree. Also most of the classes are veterinary field related so would be helpful when going onto vet school. Cytology, anesthesia monitoring, IVC placement, etc. So if you did tech school and then completed the rest of your requirements you wouldnt be behind. Maybe an extra year to finish your bachelors degree, but you dont actually need that to get into vet school.

There is a pre-vet student shadowing a vet where I work. She shadows the veterinarian, she doesnt do technician stuff. She is there to learn the veterinarian aspect of the field of vet med.

To borrow from other peoples comments about how doctors dont have to become nurses first. You can't get taught on the job to become a nurse...and that is what a technician is, plus anesthesiologist, radiologist, etc... The field shouldnt be held back because its not convenient for pre-vet students....

as i said before i do not want to turn this into a discussion about the relevance of technical skills as a vet. that is just my personal opinion (and i'm very opinionated about this from several bad experiences with vets). just my two cents and that's that 🙂

 

[nyanko]

To borrow from other peoples comments about how doctors dont have to become nurses first. You can't get taught on the job to become a nurse...and that is what a technician is, plus anesthesiologist, radiologist, etc... The field shouldnt be held back because its not convenient for pre-vet students....

I'd say anesthetist and radiology tech rather than anesthesiologist and radiologist, if we're going to be as specific as you seem to prefer about job titles and equivalences.

 

[PppermintTwist]

I'd say anesthetist and radiology tech rather than anesthesiologist and radiologist, if we're going to be as specific as you seem to prefer about job titles and equivalences.

Its not the titles Im concerned with as much as only people with a license being able to do certain things in the hospital.

 

[that redhead]

Doing a technician degree first is helpful. For tech school I had to take microbiology, chemistry, ANIMAL anatomy and physiology ( some bachelors degree schools only have human anatomy) and a lot of my other classes counted for electives when I transferred to my bachelors degree. Also most of the classes are veterinary field related so would be helpful when going onto vet school. Cytology, anesthesia monitoring, IVC placement, etc. So if you did tech school and then completed the rest of your requirements you wouldnt be behind. Maybe an extra year to finish your bachelors degree, but you dont actually need that to get into vet school.

I took the same classes - and perhaps more - than you did through my BS degree. I learned the technical skills (IV placement, anesthesia monitoring, how to take rads) through observing and gradual participation in the tasks at an animal hospital. Just because I didn't take the classes in tandem with learning the technical skills does not mean I am any less proficient at these tasks than a licensed technician. I frankly think it would be a waste of time and money to require all pre-vets to become licensed technicians for this reason. Another reason is that not all veterinary students want to practice small animal or even clinical medicine. While we learn these skills (restraint, blood draw, IV placement, etc) in school, they may be the last time we ever use them. So requiring someone's time, effort and money go toward a technician license is rather silly, in my opinion.

 

[Dsmoody23]

Yeah.

About 50% of the tech. certificate courses don't transfer to 4-year college.

So that's an extra year of school (added on to the initial 8) devoted to learning tasks and subjects that will either be repeated or completely irrelevant to your future career goals.

On the other hand, I'm working as a tech now, while finishing my bio degree. My knowledge of anatomy, micro, and the science behind technical skills is leaps and bounds above the 2-year techs at work. And the narrow range of technical skills were picked up in about two months.

Which option makes more sense for a pre-vet?

 

[PppermintTwist]

I took the same classes - and perhaps more - than you did through my BS degree. I learned the technical skills (IV placement, anesthesia monitoring, how to take rads) through observing and gradual participation in the tasks at an animal hospital. Just because I didn't take the classes in tandem with learning the technical skills does not mean I am any less proficient at these tasks than a licensed technician. I frankly think it would be a waste of time and money to require all pre-vets to become licensed technicians for this reason. Another reason is that not all veterinary students want to practice small animal or even clinical medicine. While we learn these skills (restraint, blood draw, IV placement, etc) in school, they may be the last time we ever use them. So requiring someone's time, effort and money go toward a technician license is rather silly, in my opinion.

I dont think the veterinary technician profession should be there for pre-vet students to get experience practicing things on peoples pets.

I also have my bachelors degree. I have taken the same classes as you so please dont turn this into I know more than you thread.

I stand by my opinion that technicians should go to tech school and be the only people allowed to do their job. In tech school you learn pharmacology, anatomy, cytology (differentials, WBC, etc ), how to monitor anesthesia, how the x-ray machine works. These are not things that you learn on the job or from my experience in a bachelors of science degree ( I know licensed technicians who didnt do tech school that have to ask me to look at the blood films because they didnt learn that in their BS)

pre-vet students should shadow (because like you said they wont be doing the tech stuff anyways they'll be doing doctor things)

PS I work in a referral hospital where we do internal medicine/emergency/surgery/neurology, and I think this discussion applies even more to this than in day practice.

 

[CorporateFatCat]

Yeah.

About 50% of the tech. certificate courses don't transfer to 4-year college.

So that's an extra year of school (added on to the initial 8) devoted to learning tasks and subjects that will either be repeated or completely irrelevant to your future career goals.

On the other hand, I'm working as a tech now, while finishing my bio degree. My knowledge of anatomy, micro, and the science behind technical skills is leaps and bounds above the 2-year techs at work. And the narrow range of technical skills were picked up in about two months.

Which option makes more sense for a pre-vet?

Agreed. In most situations I think none of the classes transfer and especially not for pre-reqs. So I would imagine it would take a lot longer than 1 year. I did not say a 2 year degree is wrong for the technician career. I do think it would be the wrong path for a pre-vet, however.

 

[dyachei]

I dont think the veterinary technician profession should be there for pre-vet students to get experience practicing things on peoples pets.

I also have my bachelors degree. I have taken the same classes as you so please dont turn this into I know more than you thread.

I stand by my opinion that technicians should go to tech school and be the only people allowed to do their job. In tech school you learn pharmacology, anatomy, cytology (differentials, WBC, etc ), how to monitor anesthesia, how the x-ray machine works. These are not things that you learn on the job or from my experience in a bachelors of science degree ( I know licensed technicians who didnt do tech school that have to ask me to look at the blood films because they didnt learn that in their BS)

pre-vet students should shadow (because like you said they wont be doing the tech stuff anyways they'll be doing doctor things)

PS I work in a referral hospital where we do internal medicine/emergency/surgery/neurology, and I think this discussion applies even more to this than in day practice.

A good practice will teach their techs why we do things the way we do. We teach about how the x-ray works at my clinic, for instance, because otherwise, the non-certified techs may not understand why having their hand just outside the shot without lead is STILL a bad idea. We teach what to look for on diffs and discuss why with out non LVTs as well. The same with monitoring anesthesia. On the job training is what you make of it.

I really don't think its going to happen for vet med mostly because of the price people are truly willing to pay for their pets (despite what we would want).

And with the emergence, especially in large animal, of people attempting their own vet care, I'm not sure that special training is really required for many.

 

[Dsmoody23]

... so please dont turn this into I know more than you thread.

That's pretty much exactly the point you're making.

...That a 2 year tech has access to skills and knowledge that an experienced assistant or science student doesn't.

And my response is that there are several ways to gain the same competency, and a tech. certificate isn't the only route to that knowledge.

I think the evidence of this is found in every practice that has non-cert. techs doing the same quality of work. Equally, in the states where it's legally allowed, the government also agrees that that skill set can be taught in the classroom or in the workplace.

 

[that redhead]

I dont think the veterinary technician profession should be there for pre-vet students to get experience practicing things on peoples pets.

I'm not really sure where you're drawing the line between a pre-vet student gaining experience and a technician student gaining experience. No technician just magically knows how to do these tasks - you learned them through schooling. And while some clinics likely don't provide a "why" behind how things are done, the one I was at certainly did. It wasn't like they handed me an IV catheter and told me to give a whirl. So while yes, I was essentially "practicing" things on people's pets, I'm not really sure how else one learns. Even licensed technicians are in a practicing stage at some point.

I also have my bachelors degree. I have taken the same classes as you so please dont turn this into I know more than you thread.

I wasn't attempting to make this an "I know more than you" thread by any means. I got that idea from the way you've been addressing the matter (see your quote above) but I don't feel that I know more than you or you know more than me for any reason - schooling or experiences. Even if one of us did know more than another, it's not a reason for shame or pride. [/quote]

In tech school you learn pharmacology, anatomy, cytology (differentials, WBC, etc ), how to monitor anesthesia, how the x-ray machine works. These are not things that you learn on the job or from my experience in a bachelors of science degree ( I know licensed technicians who didnt do tech school that have to ask me to look at the blood films because they didnt learn that in their BS)

Again, I'm not really sure how these things cannot be learned on the job. Is it better to go to techncian school and go through these courses? Yes, you're probably better prepared than the average pre-vet student. But that doesn't mean that they cannot learn these things on the job and because of that reason I highly doubt technician certifications will ever be required across the board. I agree you should be paid better to compensate you for your extra schooling but that's more an acknowledgement of the time and effort you put in than the potential that your skill set is better than another, non-licensed technician.

 

[nyanko]

In my opinion, and I am a bit opinionated on this, it would help to turn it into more of a profession. It is a profession to me. I went to tech school, got my license, and got a bachelors degree on top of that. I take pride in my work. I love providing nursing care, I love performing diagnostics, and I am interested in what is going on with each case and I usually enjoy interacting with the clients. I also have to keep things clean, walk dogs, and pack instruments.

But you're a pre-veterinary student, so you're also abandoning the profession? Did I get that right?

 

[heylodeb]

I dont think the veterinary technician profession should be there for pre-vet students to get experience practicing things on peoples pets.

I also have my bachelors degree. I have taken the same classes as you so please dont turn this into I know more than you thread.
pre-vet students should shadow (because like you said they wont be doing the tech stuff anyways they'll be doing doctor things)

.

well, I don't pull out my bee-yatch card very often but since I'm already grouchy from a weekend of aboslutely mind numbing pharmacokinetics:

You are wrong. Accept it. Move on.

 

[PppermintTwist]

Agreed. In most situations I think none of the classes transfer and especially not for pre-reqs. So I would imagine it would take a lot longer than 1 year. I did not say a 2 year degree is wrong for the technician career. I do think it would be the wrong path for a pre-vet, however.

This comment is incorrect. Although different schools do have different transfer credit policies if you went to an accredited tech school you should have no problems transferring your classes to your traditional 4-year college. All of my courses transferred. I could also have taken other classes like physics there on top of the tech classes. 7 of my classes were accepted in place of my four year institutions classes. The rest of my credits transferred in as electives and went towards the number of credits I needed to graduate. My path to applying to vet school has not been direct and so it has taken me longer than 4 years but I could have easily completed the rest of my pre-requisites more quickly. For some of the veterinary schools you do not need your bachelors degree so for those schools you could finish the pre-reqs apply and if you dont get in take more classes and finish your bachelors degree. It depends on which school you want to go to which is why it is always important to research those schools and fulfill their pre-reqs not just every pre-req you might possibly need for every school.

On the otherhand, no I dont think that all pre-vet students should have to become technicians first, but I do feel very strongly that if you wish to work as a veterinary technician that you to get licensed first. So if a pre-vet student wants to be a tech first to get experience, they should go to school and become licensed to do it.

In reply to other people that say they know un-licensed techs that are as good or better than licenesed ones after being in the field for over a decade. Yes I know techs that are very good who do not have their license. I dont think we should take those people out of the profession but I do feel that it is time to require technicians to go to school and get licensed first. After 10 years those techs will be the older really good techs.

 

[PppermintTwist]

well, I don't pull out my bee-yatch card very often but since I'm already grouchy from a weekend of aboslutely mind numbing pharmacokinetics:

You are wrong. Accept it. Move on.

Im sorry you dont like your classes.
I am not wrong. You are not required to agree with me however. My comments are from a technicians standpoint, I see you are in vet school now. Im saying what I feel is right for my current profession, which is that techs should go to school. No you wont automatically be a great technician, that takes hard work and time but I think that setting the standard higher would be good for the profession and patients. If you are so offended by a person who doesnt agree with you dont read this thread. We are discussing why or why not techs should be licensed which was in reference to the original comment of why dont techs stay techs, which in my opinion is because of a lack of respect. The discussion about whether pre-vet students is an offshoot of that discussing that requiring licensing for techs would make it more difficult for pre-vet students to get hands on experience. In my oppinion that pets and profession should come first although yes that would make it harder on pre-vet students unless they also went to tech school and got licensed first. The concern over this was that it adds time onto 8 years of school. I wanted to point out that it can be done without slowing you down more than a year if that depending on if you think it is important to have a bachelors degree first or not.

If you have any comments and ideas on any of the above topics please feel free to comment, other wise there is no need for immature comments.

Thank you

 

[twelvetigers]

7 of my classes were accepted in place of my four year institutions classes.

Were any of these pre-reqs?

 

[PppermintTwist]

Were any of these pre-reqs?

Microbiology, Anatomy and Physiology, General Chemistry, English, Math, and other classes that went towards my bachelors degree like psychology, spanish, mythology.

I could have taken more there but I chose not to at the time.

 

[PppermintTwist]

But you're a pre-veterinary student, so you're also abandoning the profession? Did I get that right?

I always wanted to be a veterinarian, technician was just a stepping stone to get there, so yes im moving on from being a technician, but that was my plan from the beginning.

 

[twelvetigers]

Microbiology, Anatomy and Physiology, General Chemistry, English, Math, and other classes that went towards my bachelors degree like psychology, spanish, mythology.

I could have taken more there but I chose not to at the time.

So you still have to go back and take gen bio I and II, physics I and II, gen chem II, organic chem I and II, biochem, genetics, maybe animal nutrition or cell bio... I'd rather be making my way through those than getting certified to do something I don't plan on doing. Yeah, it's great to learn tech stuff ahead of time, but hell, I don't want to spend extra time and money on that. I will work at a clinic and learn what I can while I'm there... WHILE I'm taking the classes that are REQUIRED to get into veterinary school. Period.

So, I understand the perceived benefits of getting the tech stuff first, but I think it's a silly way to go about things if you KNOW you want to be a vet from the get-go. I'm pretty sure that's how everyone here feels, hence the opposition you've met when insisting that the way you've gone about it is the way it should be done.

 

[Dsmoody23]

Microbiology, Anatomy and Physiology, General Chemistry, English, Math, and other classes that went towards my bachelors degree like psychology, spanish, mythology.

I could have taken more there but I chose not to at the time.

I notice you don't have a single one of the core technician classes listed here as transferable.

Radiology, surgical nursing, parasitology, nutrition, lab tech...

None of those transfer to most 4 year colleges, unless you can sneak them in as a low level elective, (which you couldn't, or I'm sure you would have listed them.) And absolutely none of them transfer as vet school pre-reqs.

That aside, you spent 4 years in school to transfer about 16 pre-req credits. And when you got done, you were able to get the same job as an 18 year old high school grad, at a slightly higher pay scale.

I can understand why you're a bit miffed about that investment, but it's silly to get smug about it.

 

[nyanko]

I always wanted to be a veterinarian, technician was just a stepping stone to get there, so yes im moving on from being a technician, but that was my plan from the beginning.

So basically you admit to doing what you are trying to say pre-vets shouldn't be doing. But you somehow feel like it's different because you went to school for it? Hell, I'd actually argue that you took that school spot away from someone who would actually stay in the technician profession.

edit: and microbiology and A&P wouldn't transfer to the 4 year school I went to, because at that school Micro, Anatomy and Physiology are all upper division course requirements for the major I was in and they explicitly stated that lower division CC courses in those subjects would not count for the major.

 

[PppermintTwist]

So you still have to go back and take gen bio I and II, physics I and II, gen chem II, organic chem I and II, biochem, genetics, maybe animal nutrition or cell bio... I'd rather be making my way through those than getting certified to do something I don't plan on doing. Yeah, it's great to learn tech stuff ahead of time, but hell, I don't want to spend extra time and money on that. I will work at a clinic and learn what I can while I'm there... WHILE I'm taking the classes that are REQUIRED to get into veterinary school. Period.

So, I understand the perceived benefits of getting the tech stuff first, but I think it's a silly way to go about things if you KNOW you want to be a vet from the get-go. I'm pretty sure that's how everyone here feels, hence the opposition you've met when insisting that the way you've gone about it is the way it should be done.

I already had Biology from high school. So I had to take Chem II, OchemI( not all schools require a full year) and physics I and maybe II (again, not all schools require the second half.) Biochem and I took nutrition although not all schools require that either. I could have taken gen chem II during tech school, then a year of Ochem plus nutrition, and a year of physics plus nutrition. I would have had to take biology at tech school but I had received AP credit for it already. But either way it would have gotten done.

I understand that a pre-vet student doesnt want to go to school to be a technician, but I feel that technicians should be licensed and respected, not just trained on the job, which would exlude pre-vet students unless they also went to tech school. I understand the opposition doesnt want to lose this place to get experience, but I feel that to move the profession forward its something that should be done. And it would make your technicians happier.

As a veterinarian, I will only hire licensed technicians. I feel very strongly about it. I understand that you all feel strongly as well.

 

[nyanko]

I already had Biology from high school.

There are vet schools that allow AP courses to count for prerequisites?

 

[that redhead]

There are vet schools that allow AP courses to count for prerequisites?

Yes. I'm not sure if it depends on your score but my 5 in AP Bio counted as Bio1 and 2 at my undergraduate school (and was listed on the transcript accordingly) and all of the schools I applied to (eight total) accepted that.

To the OP: you never really address why you think technicians should have to be licensed. You admit that there are excellent technicians who learned on the job - why the seemingly arbitrary demand that all technicians be licensed?

 

[Bearby]

So the way I hear it, you would rather people get into vet school without a realistic expectation of the profession or rack up more money in debt before even applying than gain experience in a clinical setting. People who are going to medical school or nursing school have to have experience hours, as well. They are working or volunteering in hospitals, interacting with clients, and learning what it is that they think they want to do is all about.

I wanted to add that I don't think simply shadowing is a good way to go about learning about the profession. When you shadow, you don't really see how hard the technicians are working for the doctor. I have worked for vets who were fantastic about recognizing how hard their staff worked for them, offered assistance if we were short-staffed, and would explain how and why they wanted something done...or would even show us because it made the clinic more efficient in the long run and made the staff interaction pleasant, which made the atmosphere and energy that the clients see pleasant as well. I have also worked for vets who never thanked their staff, came in complaining about something every morning, never offering help, and they ended up having no happy employees, which resulted in high turnover in staff and an atmosphere that I'm sure clients could sense was not ideal.

Moral of the story there...I think that having technician experience when becoming a (small animal) veterinarian is invaluable and affects the success of the practice.

 

[Dsmoody23]

I understand that a pre-vet student doesnt want to go to school to be a technician, but I feel that technicians should be licensed and respected, not just trained on the job, which would exlude pre-vet students unless they also went to tech school. I understand the opposition doesnt want to lose this place to get experience, but I feel that to move the profession forward its something that should be done. And it would make your technicians happier.

Bah. I understand the sentiment here, but you do realize that a very large number of veterinary nurses in this country are not certified?

It's not a question of flipping a switch and simply requiring certification. There would not be enough people to fill half of the existing jobs in the fantasy world you're describing.

For various family, financial, educational reasons, school is not an option for everyone looking to work in this field. And you've offered absolutely no evidence that a work-trained tech is any less functional than a school trained tech.

Equally, the added financial burden for practice owners who would have to pay the higher wages is a ridiculous added drain on an industry where profit is already declining.

 

[breenie]

edit: and microbiology and A&P wouldn't transfer to the 4 year school I went to, because at that school Micro, Anatomy and Physiology are all upper division course requirements for the major I was in and they explicitly stated that lower division CC courses in those subjects would not count for the major.

I'm from Madison, WI which has the main campus of the University of Wisconsin, the vet school, and MATC (a technical college with a certified vet tech program).

I don't believe they take gen chem in the tech program (co-workers and friends have gone through it), and UW would be very unlikely to accept any of the technician courses in an effort to transfer and earn a bachelors. Their microbiology is also separate from the kind offered at UW, which was my undergraduate. Anatomy and Physiology are also advanced level courses, as Nyanko said.

It'd be a terrible idea if you were a kid from Madison. Maybe it works in other places, but I'm skeptical that large state universities are going to accept a lot of classes like that.

 

[nyanko]

Yes. I'm not sure if it depends on your score but my 5 in AP Bio counted as Bio1 and 2 at my undergraduate school (and was listed on the transcript accordingly) and all of the schools I applied to (eight total) accepted that.

At least two of the places I applied to said that the science prerequisites needed to have a grade attached to them, so AP classes didn't count.

 

[CorporateFatCat]

My local community college has a vet tech program which is taught by 2 local veterinarians. Because one of the doctors works at the practice I work at, he set up a job shadow program for his students because of the serious lack of experience his students have. People enter the program with deluded ideas of the vet technician profession, which becomes apparent on their first shadow day. I think this is a huge problem with becoming a registered vet tech. All too often, people start these classes with no veterinary experience and really no idea of how it is to work in a hospital. This is probably one factor of job dissatisfication. It seems ridiculous to get a two year degree and then actually start working to find out it's nothing that you imagined.

 

[KiaKia]

school or no school, what's the issue?

A better solution would be to do what they do for tile installers and the other trades - if you want to be "certified", pass a paper/computer based test, and pass a practical exam. A theory and practical exam by a third party interested in maintaining the integrity of the certificate.

If you can learn all the information on your own and at work, and pass the exams, great, you saved money, got job experience, and now you have a piece of paper that proves you both know why and how to be a good vet tech.

If can't find a tech or assistant job, go to school, learn the skills there, and pass the exam. Or do a combo, taking courses for the subjects or skills you need more help in. You'll have the same certificate proving you know both how and why to be a good vet tech.

From the clinic side - say you have an excellent certified tech that knows everything and is a great teacher and leader. Why would you hire another if you can train someone that seems promising, has experience, but just never got the opportunity to learn some skills?

 

[Trematode]

My local community college has a vet tech program which is taught by 2 local veterinarians. Because one of the doctors works at the practice I work at, he set up a job shadow program for his students because of the serious lack of experience his students have. People enter the program with deluded ideas of the vet technician profession, which becomes apparent on their first shadow day. I think this is a huge problem with becoming a registered vet tech. All too often, people start these classes with no veterinary experience and really no idea of how it is to work in a hospital. This is probably one factor of job dissatisfication. It seems ridiculous to get a two year degree and then actually start working to find out it's nothing that you imagined.

That is interesting. The 2-year tech program I applied to after high school was highly competitive. We needed reference letters upon applying (a tech from the vet clinic I shadowed at wrote one of mine). We had to go in for an orientation, testing and an interview. The orientation outlined the program and job prospects. The tests were comprised of a bio/physics/chem/math test and one that asked you questions related to the career (what is a vet tech? what is the difference between vet tech and veterinarian? etc.) During my interview, they asked me even more questions about the career and allowed me to ask questions about the program. It is rare for a student to get accepted straight from high school. I got in. I figured if I could do all of that, a vet school interview would be a breeze. . It is interesting how requirements can differ between schools. People have even flunked out of the program.

 

[that redhead]

At least two of the places I applied to said that the science prerequisites needed to have a grade attached to them, so AP classes didn't count.

Yeah, there were definitely schools that didn't accept them but I'm under the impression that a fair number of them do. I'm not really sure how my score was interpreted into a grade for pre-req GPA calculation, though.

 

[sunnex3]

school or no school, what's the issue?

A better solution would be to do what they do for tile installers and the other trades - if you want to be "certified", pass a paper/computer based test, and pass a practical exam. A theory and practical exam by a third party interested in maintaining the integrity of the certificate.

If you can learn all the information on your own and at work, and pass the exams, great, you saved money, got job experience, and now you have a piece of paper that proves you both know why and how to be a good vet tech.

If can't find a tech or assistant job, go to school, learn the skills there, and pass the exam. Or do a combo, taking courses for the subjects or skills you need more help in. You'll have the same certificate proving you know both how and why to be a good vet tech.

From the clinic side - say you have an excellent certified tech that knows everything and is a great teacher and leader. Why would you hire another if you can train someone that seems promising, has experience, but just never got the opportunity to learn some skills?

👍👍 totally TOTALLY agree with this statement. 100%