ideas to cut class sizes?

[blazenmadison]

Optometry is over-saturated and the problem will get worse. There is no question about it. I heard ICO will have a record class of 170+ this fall?? In order to cut class sizes by 10-15%, it starts at the schools. Optometry students have a huge debt load- more than some of my med school friends. BUT we make a lot less than physicians.

Anyone have ideas?
such as
1)Propose to eliminate tuition assistance by states. It will create more debt load for students and deter opt schools from expanding their class sizes. This also can be said to eliminate state-supported schools.
2)Current OD students start petition forcing admin to admit less students. A student from each school will be in charge of the petition and get their classmates involved. (more feasible)

Ideas must be put into action. this is a start...ideas????? or maybe i am going to buy a parka and move to Alaska.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ryan_eyeball]

Optometry is over-saturated and the problem will get worse. There is no question about it. I heard ICO will have a record class of 170+ this fall?? In order to cut class sizes by 10-15%, it starts at the schools. Optometry students have a huge debt load- more than some of my med school friends. BUT we make a lot less than physicians.

Anyone have ideas?
such as
1)Propose to eliminate tuition assistance by states. It will create more debt load for students and deter opt schools from expanding their class sizes. This also can be said to eliminate state-supported schools.
2)Current OD students start petition forcing admin to admit less students. A student from each school will be in charge of the petition and get their classmates involved. (more feasible)

Ideas must be put into action. this is a start...ideas????? or maybe i am going to buy a parka and move to Alaska.

Now that I've graduated, I hope student federal loan interest rates help inch back closer to 10%, this will deter students from that 100k loan lol. But realisticly it has to start with the schools, willing to cut class sizes.

 

[still_confused]

create more debt for students????? that will only push more if not all graduates towards commercial! If anything debt needs to be decreased so that students can take the lower paying jobs in private practice or have any chance of starting cold themselves. The benefit of reducing class size will far be dimished by the impact of 100% commercialization of the profession. IMO, while less graduates might lead to less commercial workers, what is probably more likely is the commercial establishments will raise thier rates in response to the shortage and it will be an offer a optometry graduate cannot refuse given thier debt load.

some schools are small and if you cut them by 10-15% it will make the school not only financial unviable but affect the kind of education we receive. it is up to the biggest offenders to reduce thier class size drastically and small schools to make smaller but necessary cuts.

Most of the smaller schools are state schools which recieve money from the government for students as well as a significant amount for research, they should be expected to cut maybe 10% at most to preserve diversity at the very least.

Cuts are easier (adminstratively) then one might think. How about establishing a minimum gpa -oat index? by raising the academic standard for admission we can not only lower class size but also improve our image among the medical community. I am sorry but the people will with gpas lower then 3.0 should not be offered admission but asked to attend a post bacc program to raise it.

and there is no way i will want to start a petition at my school. currently the faculty (either delusional or correct) sees optometry as expanding and needing more providers. and i know we have freedom of speech and stuff but i am not going to go out of my way to try to show up the faculty or try to confront them. its just not a sane thing to do while they are trying to impart knowledge upon you.

it is up to alumni, donors, and the AOA to esbalish guidelines and enforce action. afterall we are still students and say the faculty is only annoyed by what we do, they will not take us seriuosly.

 

[still_confused]

Now that I've graduated, I hope student federal loan interest rates help inch back closer to 10%, this will deter students from that 100k loan lol. But realisticly it has to start with the schools, willing to cut class sizes.

So you are saying optometry should be for the rich families that can afford it? Now that you have reached the top of the optometry mountain you want to kick down the ladder for those following you?

i hope you are joking

 

[Ryan_eyeball]

So you are saying optometry should be for the rich families that can afford it? Now that you have reached the top of the optometry mountain you want to kick down the ladder for those following you?

i hope you are joking

Student tutuion rates are not going to go down at any professional school. At least I've never heard of an OD school actually lowering the tution. I'm not trying to kick anyone down, but this was a post about trying to lower # of OD's. I do like the idea of at least having a 3.0 GPA, maybe even a 3.2 GPA, and minimum 310 OAT (which come on, isn't that hard to get). Hey, I don't set the government student federal loan rates, but I do think they are going to be at the 6-7% rate for awhile now.

Have a good day.

 

[KHE]

Optometry schools operate on a theoretical basis of demand. They feel that every single soul should have a comprehensive eye exam each and every year. As such, they project "demand" based on the false notion that people will get exams every year and admit students accordingly. The fact that even if eye exams were FREE, not everyone would get an exam every year is completely lost on them. The AOA is no different. They state that young healthy adults should be examined every other year yet they are also one of the biggest sponsors of "check yearly, see clearly" which doesn't exactly jive with their official position of "check every other year."

Schools will not volutarily reduce class size any time before the earth crashes into the sun.

It is my opinion that the best way to handle this situation is to have every OD donate $500 into a fund to be used to pay tution to schools, but for the schools to NOT admit students.

30000 ODs donating $500 each would create a fund of $15 million. If the average tution at optometry schools is $20000, then that would "pay the tuition" of 750 students. Give that money to the schools, but don't admit the students.

Not only would this have an immediate impact on the number of students entering, it would increase the quality of those admitted, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY it would provide a much better clinical experience for those who ARE admitted because there would be more patients for those students to see at the schools themselves. As it stands now, few schools have busy enough clinics to support their student bodies. Most clinical encounters occur on external rotations.

Some people have suggested that this amounts to some form of collusion, or artifical control of some sort of free market. I respectfully disagree. We give farmers billions of dollars a year to NOT grow crops so as to maintain a certain price point of wheat, grain, and other crops. I see this as no different.

create more debt for students????? that will only push more if not all graduates towards commercial! If anything debt needs to be decreased so that students can take the lower paying jobs in private practice or have any chance of starting cold themselves. The benefit of reducing class size will far be dimished by the impact of 100% commercialization of the profession. IMO, while less graduates might lead to less commercial workers, what is probably more likely is the commercial establishments will raise thier rates in response to the shortage and it will be an offer a optometry graduate cannot refuse given thier debt load.

some schools are small and if you cut them by 10-15% it will make the school not only financial unviable but affect the kind of education we receive. it is up to the biggest offenders to reduce thier class size drastically and small schools to make smaller but necessary cuts.

Most of the smaller schools are state schools which recieve money from the government for students as well as a significant amount for research, they should be expected to cut maybe 10% at most to preserve diversity at the very least.

Cuts are easier (adminstratively) then one might think. How about establishing a minimum gpa -oat index? by raising the academic standard for admission we can not only lower class size but also improve our image among the medical community. I am sorry but the people will with gpas lower then 3.0 should not be offered admission but asked to attend a post bacc program to raise it.

and there is no way i will want to start a petition at my school. currently the faculty (either delusional or correct) sees optometry as expanding and needing more providers. and i know we have freedom of speech and stuff but i am not going to go out of my way to try to show up the faculty or try to confront them. its just not a sane thing to do while they are trying to impart knowledge upon you.

it is up to alumni, donors, and the AOA to esbalish guidelines and enforce action. afterall we are still students and say the faculty is only annoyed by what we do, they will not take us seriuosly.

 

[sethuel1]

I just started at ICO. Our class is not over 170. It's ~155.

 

[still_confused]

just off the opted.org website in 2005 the highest enrollments are :

PCO @161
ICO@ 153
SCO @ 122
NECO@ 110

the rest have enrollments 100 or lower.

if all these schools cut by 10%, they will still hover about 100 which is still more then the other schools.

without a official governing body, the schools have no reason to do anything about this . there needs to be a central council that governs these things and its sad that optometry doesnt have one and spends all of its time fighting others rather then fixing ourselves.

 

[r_salis]

Currently, probably 10% of those enrollment figures get cut before graduation due to attrition for students failing out or leaving the programs for other reasons.

 

[cpw]

my class started with 98... we graduated 82.

 

[gsinccom]

It seems that the problems of optometry can't be blamed on oversupply of ODs. All reliable sources show that more OD's will be needed. I think there are plenty of other professions where the same can not be said. If you look at the government data it looks like new ODs will be needed through 2012 to 2014, at least. Additionally, I've also seen this picture portrayed by popular magazines and media outlets too over the past few years (cnn, USNews, jobsratedalmanac, etc). How is this all explained?

a few examples follow:

http://www.wiche.edu/Workforce/ (here is info for the west)

and info for the nation(from the U.S. Department of Labor:

Job Outlook

Employment of optometrists is expected to grow faster than average for all occupations through 2014, in response to the vision care needs of a growing and aging population. As baby boomers age, they will be more likely to visit optometrists and ophthalmologists because of the onset of vision problems in middle age, including those resulting from the extensive use of computers. The demand for optometric services also will increase because of growth in the oldest age group, with its increased likelihood of cataracts, glaucoma, diabetes, and hypertension. Greater recognition of the importance of vision care, along with rising personal incomes and growth in employee vision care plans, also will spur job growth.

Employment of optometrists would grow more rapidly were it not for anticipated productivity gains that will allow each optometrist to see more patients. These expected gains stem from greater use of optometric assistants and other support personnel, who will reduce the amount of time optometrists need with each patient. Also, laser surgery that can correct some vision problems is available, and although optometrists still will be needed to provide preoperative and postoperative care for laser surgery patients, patients who successfully undergo this surgery may not require optometrists to prescribe glasses or contacts for several years.

In addition to growth, the need to replace optometrists who retire or leave the occupation for another reason will create employment opportunities.

 

[jlc111]

It seems that the problems of optometry can't be blamed on oversupply of ODs. All reliable sources show that more OD's will be needed. I think there are plenty of other professions where the same can not be said. If you look at the government data it looks like new ODs will be needed through 2012 to 2014, at least. Additionally, I've also seen this picture portrayed by popular magazines and media outlets too over the past few years (cnn, USNews, jobsratedalmanac, etc). How is this all explained?

a few examples follow:

http://www.wiche.edu/Workforce/ (here is info for the west)

and info for the nation(from the U.S. Department of Labor:

Job Outlook

Employment of optometrists is expected to grow faster than average for all occupations through 2014, in response to the vision care needs of a growing and aging population. As baby boomers age, they will be more likely to visit optometrists and ophthalmologists because of the onset of vision problems in middle age, including those resulting from the extensive use of computers. The demand for optometric services also will increase because of growth in the oldest age group, with its increased likelihood of cataracts, glaucoma, diabetes, and hypertension. Greater recognition of the importance of vision care, along with rising personal incomes and growth in employee vision care plans, also will spur job growth.

Employment of optometrists would grow more rapidly were it not for anticipated productivity gains that will allow each optometrist to see more patients. These expected gains stem from greater use of optometric assistants and other support personnel, who will reduce the amount of time optometrists need with each patient. Also, laser surgery that can correct some vision problems is available, and although optometrists still will be needed to provide preoperative and postoperative care for laser surgery patients, patients who successfully undergo this surgery may not require optometrists to prescribe glasses or contacts for several years.

In addition to growth, the need to replace optometrists who retire or leave the occupation for another reason will create employment opportunities.

Wow..

You must be kidding... or you are insane..

Unless optometry not only reduce class sizes but actually close down few schools, this profession is doomed..

Do you think that the U.S. dept. of labor knows more about the status of optometry than practicing O.D.'s? Talk to any recently graduated O.D.'s. They can tell you all about the problem of over-supply which will only get worse by the time you guys graduate.

Unbelievable!

 

[KHE]

It seems that the problems of optometry can't be blamed on oversupply of ODs. All reliable sources show that more OD's will be needed.

Job Outlook

Employment of optometrists is expected to grow faster than average for all occupations through 2014, in response to the vision care needs of a growing and aging population. As baby boomers age, they will be more likely to visit optometrists and ophthalmologists because of the onset of vision problems in middle age, including those resulting from the extensive use of computers. The demand for optometric services also will increase because of growth in the oldest age group, with its increased likelihood of cataracts, glaucoma, diabetes, and hypertension. Greater recognition of the importance of vision care, along with rising personal incomes and growth in employee vision care plans, also will spur job growth.

Employment of optometrists would grow more rapidly were it not for anticipated productivity gains that will allow each optometrist to see more patients. These expected gains stem from greater use of optometric assistants and other support personnel, who will reduce the amount of time optometrists need with each patient. Also, laser surgery that can correct some vision problems is available, and although optometrists still will be needed to provide preoperative and postoperative care for laser surgery patients, patients who successfully undergo this surgery may not require optometrists to prescribe glasses or contacts for several years.

In addition to growth, the need to replace optometrists who retire or leave the occupation for another reason will create employment opportunities.

It is my opinion that the above statements are a massive load of crap-ola.

If you look at the number of optometrists historically in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s and compare it to the population at large, you will see that the number of ODs is growing at a MUCH LARGER rate than the general population.

There is also absolutely no reason to think that "baby boomers" are somehow going to save optometry. Baby boomers have already been presbyopic for years. And while they may develop some of the age related vision problems mentioned above, there is no reason to think that they will seek out optometric care for these issues because they are very likely to bypass optometry all together when they are referred directly to ophthalmology by the PCP or internist who is treating their diabetes or hypertension.

Older ODs do not retire. They die. I now of at least 8 ODs who are over the age of 70 still working a variety of days here and there in various private and commercial practices and that's just in my small little corner of my small state.

Right now, it takes at least 6 weeks to get an appointment with 95% of ophthalmologists in this country. However, there is not a single area of the country where you can not get optometric care within 2 days and within 50 miles. Don't believe me? Try pulling your yellow pages off of the shelf and start phoning around the ODs listed and ask them when you can be seen. I would be willing to bet $100 that there is no part of the country where you can not find at least one OD who will see you within 2 days, and I would also bet $100 that in 85% of the country, you would be able to get a same day walk in appointment at virtuall ALL commercial locations and MOST private practice locations.

So the notion that there is going to be a sudden increase in demand for optometric services is a non-starter. Reducing the number of graduating ODs is the only way to help head this problem off.

 

[Ryan_eyeball]

It is my opinion that the above statements are a massive load of crap-ola.

If you look at the number of optometrists historically in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s and compare it to the population at large, you will see that the number of ODs is growing at a MUCH LARGER rate than the general population.

There is also absolutely no reason to think that "baby boomers" are somehow going to save optometry. Baby boomers have already been presbyopic for years. And while they may develop some of the age related vision problems mentioned above, there is no reason to think that they will seek out optometric care for these issues because they are very likely to bypass optometry all together when they are referred directly to ophthalmology by the PCP or internist who is treating their diabetes or hypertension.

Older ODs do not retire. They die. I now of at least 8 ODs who are over the age of 70 still working a variety of days here and there in various private and commercial practices and that's just in my small little corner of my small state.

Right now, it takes at least 6 weeks to get an appointment with 95% of ophthalmologists in this country. However, there is not a single area of the country where you can not get optometric care within 2 days and within 50 miles. Don't believe me? Try pulling your yellow pages off of the shelf and start phoning around the ODs listed and ask them when you can be seen. I would be willing to bet $100 that there is no part of the country where you can not find at least one OD who will see you within 2 days, and I would also bet $100 that in 85% of the country, you would be able to get a same day walk in appointment at virtuall ALL commercial locations and MOST private practice locations.

So the notion that there is going to be a sudden increase in demand for optometric services is a non-starter. Reducing the number of graduating ODs is the only way to help head this problem off.

You hit the nail right on the head. When I worked at an OMD's practice over the summer before I got my license we saw almost excusively 90% of patients who over the age of 60. The elderly isn't going to flock to optometry as much as they are going to Ophthalmology. If you're thinking the baby boom generation is making you have a good feeling if you're a student just wait til you start interviewing. Or go try working in optometry offices, and see how easy it is to get an appointment with an OD within 1-2 days anywhere. Great post KHE.

 

[iiiimonica]

1. good luck with reducing class sizes, but imho most optometrists are too cheap to pay the $500 per year. there is no way schools will reduce class size, especially since most alumni don't donate and school funds come from fees/tution.

2. not letting anyone in with a below 3.0, 310 on your OAT is not going to help with lowering the numbers of new od's (not that many get in and they have stellar ec's). plus you'd miss some awesome clinicians. making 3.0 the absolute cut off will not make the medical community respect us more. those who don't respect the od, never will.

3. know what you are signing up for BEFORE you sign up. too many od's? duh! will you be forced commericial, probably. be okay with this before you sign up. don't have any business sense or interest, not the career for you. in this for money? sooooo not the career for you. think you will be mostly treating eye disease, ummm no! you will be "spinning dials" and fulfilling your patient's primary complaint which is ..."I need a new rx for glasses or contacts". sorry folks, but this is 85+% of optometry. i know some practicing od's will jump on here and say "but i see a lot of eye disease". exception, not the rule.

4. we can be angry about the number of od students until we get so bitter that we turn into...odwire, but it's the reality of the situation. you have to know this coming into the profession. if you don't know this, YOU did not do your homework. it's no secret that there are too many od's.


i love optometry. it is a great career choice for me. but i knew how dysfunctional optometry was before i signed up.

 

[iiiimonica]

1)Propose to eliminate tuition assistance by states. It will create more debt load for students and deter opt schools from expanding their class sizes. This also can be said to eliminate state-supported schools.


the state supported schools all have EXCELLENT programs, where the cutting edge research that drives optometry takes place. optometrists that graduates from these programs (UCBSO, UHCO, IU, SUNY, Ohio ect.) are leaders in optometry. taking away university symbiosis (sorry i can't think of a different word) would make our profession the poorer. without the high quality research that comes from these endowed instutions optometry would not advance as a profession. plus no football games!

 

[still_confused]

so after much debate we have reached in the inevitable conclusion:

optometry is dead, party's over, show's ended, lets all go home.


PS When i suggested not letting anyone in under a 3.0 I only wish that they would retake the classes and get a respectable gpa. All the ECs in the world and the great clinician skills isnt going to help you if you cannot learn the material and learn it VERY well. MDs will have one less weapon when we can show them that the average gpa of optometry students is the same as thiers (3.5) or at least close. I am not trying to put anyone down but its embarassing to read posts online where people ask if they have a chance with a bunch of C's. The correct answer in a world where optometry is moving forwards is : NO WAY (retake please). But in the real world where optometry is squandering a golden oppurtunity to move forward is: sure why not, we need more bodies.

 

[POJO]

If the debate is about reducing enrollments, why are private schools at least 50-100 % larger in class sizes than public? Why are public schools so much less expensive than private (except for out-of-state)

It's the private optometry schools which are causing the over supply.

 

[kittyn]

so after much debate we have reached in the inevitable conclusion:

optometry is dead, party's over, show's ended, lets all go home.


PS When i suggested not letting anyone in under a 3.0 I only wish that they would retake the classes and get a respectable gpa. All the ECs in the world and the great clinician skills isnt going to help you if you cannot learn the material and learn it VERY well. MDs will have one less weapon when we can show them that the average gpa of optometry students is the same as thiers (3.5) or at least close. I am not trying to put anyone down but its embarassing to read posts online where people ask if they have a chance with a bunch of C's. The correct answer in a world where optometry is moving forwards is : NO WAY (retake please). But in the real world where optometry is squandering a golden oppurtunity to move forward is: sure why not, we need more bodies.

Don't forget the OAT scores!

 

[iiiimonica]

so after much debate we have reached in the inevitable conclusion:

optometry is dead, party's over, show's ended, lets all go home.


PS When i suggested not letting anyone in under a 3.0 I only wish that they would retake the classes and get a respectable gpa. All the ECs in the world and the great clinician skills isnt going to help you if you cannot learn the material and learn it VERY well. MDs will have one less weapon when we can show them that the average gpa of optometry students is the same as thiers (3.5) or at least close. I am not trying to put anyone down but its embarassing to read posts online where people ask if they have a chance with a bunch of C's. The correct answer in a world where optometry is moving forwards is : NO WAY (retake please). But in the real world where optometry is squandering a golden oppurtunity to move forward is: sure why not, we need more bodies.

no the party is not over, it's just been moved to a more realistic location. you can still be succesful, you just have to know what you are getting into.

as for learning material very well, no one (no matter what the gpa/oat's were) practices without passing the boards, and no one gets through od programs without having learned what they need to be compentent optometrists (okay maybe not no one, but 99.9%)

 

[drgregory]

Optometry schools operate on a theoretical basis of demand. They feel that every single soul should have a comprehensive eye exam each and every year. As such, they project "demand" based on the false notion that people will get exams every year and admit students accordingly. The fact that even if eye exams were FREE, not everyone would get an exam every year is completely lost on them. The AOA is no different. They state that young healthy adults should be examined every other year yet they are also one of the biggest sponsors of "check yearly, see clearly" which doesn't exactly jive with their official position of "check every other year."

Schools will not volutarily reduce class size any time before the earth crashes into the sun.

It is my opinion that the best way to handle this situation is to have every OD donate $500 into a fund to be used to pay tution to schools, but for the schools to NOT admit students.

30000 ODs donating $500 each would create a fund of $15 million. If the average tution at optometry schools is $20000, then that would "pay the tuition" of 750 students. Give that money to the schools, but don't admit the students.

Not only would this have an immediate impact on the number of students entering, it would increase the quality of those admitted, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY it would provide a much better clinical experience for those who ARE admitted because there would be more patients for those students to see at the schools themselves. As it stands now, few schools have busy enough clinics to support their student bodies. Most clinical encounters occur on external rotations.

Some people have suggested that this amounts to some form of collusion, or artifical control of some sort of free market. I respectfully disagree. We give farmers billions of dollars a year to NOT grow crops so as to maintain a certain price point of wheat, grain, and other crops. I see this as no different.

quite possibly the most logical answer ive heard yet. i live in an agricultural state, and the last bit about farming is right on the money.

 

[drgregory]

3. know what you are signing up for BEFORE you sign up. too many od's? duh! will you be forced commericial, probably. be okay with this before you sign up. don't have any business sense or interest, not the career for you. in this for money? sooooo not the career for you. think you will be mostly treating eye disease, ummm no! you will be "spinning dials" and fulfilling your patient's primary complaint which is ..."I need a new rx for glasses or contacts". sorry folks, but this is 85+% of optometry. i know some practicing od's will jump on here and say "but i see a lot of eye disease". exception, not the rule.

4. we can be angry about the number of od students until we get so bitter that we turn into...odwire, but it's the reality of the situation. you have to know this coming into the profession. if you don't know this, YOU did not do your homework. it's no secret that there are too many od's.

these are the sins i committed. hence my bitterness towards certain aspects of the profession. i figure its worth a try to turn the profession around in the right direction. naturally, the first front of battle involves cleaning the tarnished image created by corporate optometry.

 

[KHE]

1. good luck with reducing class sizes, but imho most optometrists are too cheap to pay the $500 per year. there is no way schools will reduce class size, especially since most alumni don't donate and school funds come from fees/tution.

2. not letting anyone in with a below 3.0, 310 on your OAT is not going to help with lowering the numbers of new od's (not that many get in and they have stellar ec's). plus you'd miss some awesome clinicians. making 3.0 the absolute cut off will not make the medical community respect us more. those who don't respect the od, never will.

While I certainly may be wrong about this, it is my opinion that the vast majority of ODs WOULD in fact be willing to donate that $500 because it is $500 that would go directly and immediately to a project that will provide a direct and immediate and OBSERVABLE benefit to the profession. SChools would still get their "tuition" they just wouldn't get the students. In fact, that sounds like a win/win for the schools.

With respect to your second point above, I still do not think it is unreasonable to expect that ALL students who are admitted into programs in which they will be trained to care for the ocular and visual health of the public someway, somehow manage to attain a B average over their college career, regardless of how "great their extracurriculars are" or how nice of a person they may be.

 

[iiiimonica]

While I certainly may be wrong about this, it is my opinion that the vast majority of ODs WOULD in fact be willing to donate that $500 because it is $500 that would go directly and immediately to a project that will provide a direct and immediate and OBSERVABLE benefit to the profession. SChools would still get their "tuition" they just wouldn't get the students. In fact, that sounds like a win/win for the schools.

With respect to your second point above, I still do not think it is unreasonable to expect that ALL students who are admitted into programs in which they will be trained to care for the ocular and visual health of the public someway, somehow manage to attain a B average over their college career, regardless of how "great their extracurriculars are" or how nice of a person they may be.

i dont know KHE, i've worked with lost of OD's and most were very cheap. i easily made the gpa/oat cutoffs, but i can see if someone hit bumps or took a very hard major in their undergrad, not making these cutoffs. my biggest argument for this is Cal, take a look at their incoming class profiles, every year someone gets accepted with a sub 3.0 gpa.

let's just hug and agree to disagree on these 2 things

 

[gsinccom]

Wow..

You must be kidding... or you are insane..

Unless optometry not only reduce class sizes but actually close down few schools, this profession is doomed..

Do you think that the U.S. dept. of labor knows more about the status of optometry than practicing O.D.'s? Talk to any recently graduated O.D.'s. They can tell you all about the problem of over-supply which will only get worse by the time you guys graduate.

Unbelievable!

No, I don't neccessarily believe that the Government data is better than what one can get through shadowing or working with ODs. I mentioned the Government data because that is the data that students see from their undergrad pre-Optometry advisor when they are working on their pre-reqs and deciding whether or not to apply to OD school. This is the data that Optometry school admissions counselors use as well. I also believe that the AOA seems to push the need for new OD's as well using this same data. Until you get this data corrected (as you all seem to propose it needs be) then a majority of people considering the profession will think (whether correct or not) that their is a demand for new OD's. Shadowing, volunteering and working with ODs helps but this is not the main source of data for a pre-OD student. Unfortunately when some OD's complain about the oversupply it comes across soley as ancedotal and just whining so that is why people turn to what seems to be more "official" sources. ----peace...out
read this for backup:http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=4051570#post4051570

 

[iiiimonica]

Shadowing, volunteering and working with ODs helps but this is not the main source of data for a pre-OD student.

ah yes but it SHOULD be! anyone willing to invest ~$100,000 into anything should research it! most pre-health advisors have NO clue what really happens in opt/pharm/dent/med world, why would you believe them? what would the AOA say? don't do optometry? c'mon folks a little common sense. SHADOW, SHADOW, SHADOW!

maybe the area you want to practice in isn't saturated, maybe you will work for an OD who hates their job, maybe you will work for an od who optometry - shadow a few, get a real picture of the profession - and then make your choice.

 

[gsinccom]

ah yes but it SHOULD be! anyone willing to invest ~$100,000 into anything should research it! most pre-health advisors have NO clue what really happens in opt/pharm/dent/med world, why would you believe them? what would the AOA say? don't do optometry? c'mon folks a little common sense. SHADOW, SHADOW, SHADOW!

maybe the area you want to practice in isn't saturated, maybe you will work for an OD who hates their job, maybe you will work for an od who optometry - shadow a few, get a real picture of the profession - and then make your choice.

I certainly agree with you. However, Optometry can do a much better job at getting the word out! And yes the AOA should paint the picture as is and not otherwise. They need to take care of all ODs not just the pre-ODs.

 

[Ben Chudner]

i easily made the gpa/oat cutoffs, but i can see if someone hit bumps or took a very hard major in their undergrad, not making these cutoffs. my biggest argument for this is Cal, take a look at their incoming class profiles, every year someone gets accepted with a sub 3.0 gpa.

How do you know if someone just hit bumps? What's the point of having a GPA and OAT scores if we don't use them as the true assessment of someone's academic ability? When I go see my doctor, I want to know that she got into graduate school because of good grades and not because she was a cheerleader in college.

 

[KHE]

How do you know if someone just hit bumps? What's the point of having a GPA and OAT scores if we don't use them as the true assessment of someone's academic ability? When I go see my doctor, I want to know that she got into graduate school because of good grades and not because she was a cheerleader in college.

Not that there's anything wrong with being a cheerleader, of course.

 

[Ben Chudner]

Not that there's anything wrong with being a cheerleader, of course.

Thank god I don't have access to her grades.

 

[iiiimonica]

How do you know if someone just hit bumps? What's the point of having a GPA and OAT scores if we don't use them as the true assessment of someone's academic ability? When I go see my doctor, I want to know that she got into graduate school because of good grades and not because she was a cheerleader in college.

why would you care how she got into grad school? shouldn't you care more that she graduated and passed her boards? i can tell you having worked with some major brains that thier academic prowess doesn't make them better clinicians or better with patients. (though one optometrist i worked with had it all, i soooo want to be her when i grow up!)

i didn't say NOT to use the gpa/oat (even i have limits! ) stop twisting my arguement. and again look at Cal! why would they of the big ego, take a chance on students with below 3.0 when they get so many applicants with above 3.0? it might have something to do with looking at the whole picture.

and i would hope someone with low stats (or a bunch of W's) would explain that they hit bumps and then there whole application could be reviewed.

look ben, you and i disagree on this. everytime something comes up on gpa/oats we are on different sides of the fence. hopefully one day you and i will both sit on adcom committees and then our opinions will actually mean something. until then, here is a hug and let's just agree to disagree

 

[drsax]

why would you care how she got into grad school? shouldn't you care more that she graduated and passed her boards? i can tell you having worked with some major brains that thier academic prowess doesn't make them better clinicians or better with patients. (though one optometrist i worked with had it all, i soooo want to be her when i grow up!)

Great point!

 

[Ben Chudner]

Great point!

Obviously my comment about the cherrleader was meant as a joke since someone that passes the boards should be proficient enough to treat patients. My comment about GPA and OAT scores, was a bit more serious. As someone that has actually been through 4 years at Cal optometry, I have seen first hand theproblems with admitting less qualified students. My class lost a few students to the year behind us as well as gained a couple from the year ahead of us. One of those actually took 6 years to graduate. These students took spots from more deserving students that did not make the cheerleading squad. The other issue with allowing less qualified students to enter optometry school is that they tended to have more difficulty in clinic because they just didn't catch on quick enough. That resulted in the clinical instructors having to spend a disproportionate amount of time with these students which took away from the rest of the class. I also believe there was a study discussed on this site that showed that entering GPA scores correlated with board pass rates.

I have no problem with allowing for special circumstances to be considered to get into undergrad. I honestly believe that some students are at a disadvantage because of where their high school is located. Growing up in Los Angeles, there was a definite difference between my math/science magnet high school in the valley and Compton High. Once we get into undergrad, I think it's time to perform.

 

[drsax]

I do get that you were joking but I still agree with iiimonica's comment. Just to look at the flip side though...how do you know the people that are having trouble are the ones who "barely" got into optometry school? Did they volunteer that information to you, or are you just guessing they are because they are having trouble? Professional school can probably be a shock to anyone whether they were from the top of their undergraduate class on down. But I do see your point though. It can take time from the rest of the class if some are not as quick to catch on to things. But just like the OAT, I am sure the boards are an even measurement of your knowledge...the only difference is that the admissions committee can make exceptions to make up for a low OAT score. There is no getting around bad boards scores.

 

[Ben Chudner]

I do get that you were joking but I still agree with iiimonica's comment. Just to look at the flip side though...how do you know the people that are having trouble are the ones who "barely" got into optometry school? Did they volunteer that information to you, or are you just guessing they are because they are having trouble? Professional school can probably be a shock to anyone whether they were from the top of their undergraduate class on down. But I do see your point though. It can take time from the rest of the class if some are not as quick to catch on to things. But just like the OAT, I am sure the boards are an even measurement of your knowledge...the only difference is that the admissions committee can make exceptions to make up for a low OAT score. There is no getting around bad boards scores.

Until the board passing rate is one hundred percent, I will still argue that those that fail were on the bottom end of the range of entering GPA's. If someone has access to the study (if there is one) that was brought up on another thread, I would appreciate it. But as iiimonica suggests, we should just agree to disagree.

 

[iiiimonica]

Obviously my comment about the cherrleader was meant as a joke since someone that passes the boards should be proficient enough to treat patients. My comment about GPA and OAT scores, was a bit more serious. As someone that has actually been through 4 years at Cal optometry, I have seen first hand theproblems with admitting less qualified students. My class lost a few students to the year behind us as well as gained a couple from the year ahead of us. One of those actually took 6 years to graduate. These students took spots from more deserving students that did not make the cheerleading squad. The other issue with allowing less qualified students to enter optometry school is that they tended to have more difficulty in clinic because they just didn't catch on quick enough. That resulted in the clinical instructors having to spend a disproportionate amount of time with these students which took away from the rest of the class. I also believe there was a study discussed on this site that showed that entering GPA scores correlated with board pass rates.

I have no problem with allowing for special circumstances to be considered to get into undergrad. I honestly believe that some students are at a disadvantage because of where their high school is located. Growing up in Los Angeles, there was a definite difference between my math/science magnet high school in the valley and Compton High. Once we get into undergrad, I think it's time to perform.

just when i thought i got out you pulled me back in!

1. the numer of student who need to be held back DO NOT affect the incoming class. the incoming class acceptance is ALWAYS set at 60, this years class has 62 (60 newly admitted and 2 from last year, me and my classmate) having to repeat DOES NOT take a spot from an incoming student. let me repeat that - a person repeating DOES NOT NOT NOT take a spot from an incoming student. The number of new students being accepted is always at 60! Cal has attrition like every other school. are the people who repeat the same as the low gpa/oats? i can tell you from my experience, no.


2. as for "once we get into undergrad it's time to perform", ummm how? with no preparation and very little guidence? it's pretty hard to pull yourself up by your boot straps when you have no boots. but i think this is a discussion for a whole other forum.

before anyone asks...the reason i had to repeat is that i took on way too many resposibilities and did not spend enough time on my studies.

 

[Ryan_eyeball]

just when i thought i got out you pulled me back in!

1. the numer of student who need to be held back DO NOT affect the incoming class. the incoming class acceptance is ALWAYS set at 60, this years class has 62 (60 newly admitted and 2 from last year, me and my classmate) having to repeat DOES NOT take a spot from an incoming student. let me repeat that - a person repeating DOES NOT NOT NOT take a spot from an incoming student. The number of new students being accepted is always at 60! Cal has attrition like every other school. are the people who repeat the same as the low gpa/oats? i can tell you from my experience, no.


2. as for "once we get into undergrad it's time to perform", ummm how? with no preparation and very little guidence? it's pretty hard to pull yourself up by your boot straps when you have no boots. but i think this is a discussion for a whole other forum.

before anyone asks...the reason i had to repeat is that i took on way too many resposibilities and did not spend enough time on my studies.

Ouch, that is about a $100,000 dollar mistake (extra tuition year, and a whole year of missed practicing salary). Why did you take on so many on responsiblities when your first and foremost should have been OD school? Sorry not trying to be judgemental and I wish you the best throughout the rest of school.

 

[drsax]

Until the board passing rate is one hundred percent, I will still argue that those that fail were on the bottom end of the range of entering GPA's. If someone has access to the study (if there is one) that was brought up on another thread, I would appreciate it. But as iiimonica suggests, we should just agree to disagree.

Sure I can agree to disagree . The only down side to that is by the time someone takes their boards, it is near the end of optometry school. So what good does it do to know that they barely got in when they are past the halfway mark? I'm sure we all know undergrad can be a crazy time of finding yourself, possibly finding out what you want to do with the rest of your life, and most importantly finding time to study. Alot of things going on to pull your focus. (i.e...you wonder if you are missing out on the latest, biggest event like you friends of other majors in undergrad for studying)

The one thing about entering Optometry school is that at least you know that everyone in your class (regardless of how they got in) is there with the same career aspirations. So even if a person is having trouble they have a good support group. It just sounds like people forget that optometry school is still...well...school! Everyone is learning new concepts that some catch easier/faster than others.

Maybe the problem isn't the number of students being admitted. Maybe you all have a problem with the number of students passing their boards, because no matter how a person gets in, as long as they pass their boards they can practice...which leads to this "saturation" of ODs...not OD students.

 

[Ben Chudner]

just when i thought i got out you pulled me back in!

1. the numer of student who need to be held back DO NOT affect the incoming class. the incoming class acceptance is ALWAYS set at 60, this years class has 62 (60 newly admitted and 2 from last year, me and my classmate) having to repeat DOES NOT take a spot from an incoming student. let me repeat that - a person repeating DOES NOT NOT NOT take a spot from an incoming student. The number of new students being accepted is always at 60! Cal has attrition like every other school. are the people who repeat the same as the low gpa/oats? i can tell you from my experience, no.


2. as for "once we get into undergrad it's time to perform", ummm how? with no preparation and very little guidence? it's pretty hard to pull yourself up by your boot straps when you have no boots. but i think this is a discussion for a whole other forum.

before anyone asks...the reason i had to repeat is that i took on way too many resposibilities and did not spend enough time on my studies.

I now understand why you are so passionate about this topic. I really like how you repeated yourself in caps so that I would get your point. The problem is that you missed mine. I never said that students, like yourself, that have to repeat a year take the spot of a someone in the next class. They wasted a spot in their original class. For example, if you would have just waited a year and gotten yourself prepared for optometry school, someone else could have taken your original spot, and then you could enter a year later (graduate in the same year as you will now anyway) and you could have taken the spot of one of the students in your new class that is going to be held back.

I am glad to hear that your reason for not being able to pass your 1st year classes is not due to your GPA. My class had a student join us from the class ahead of us because she spent a lot of time doing research. She graduated with us, passed her boards, and is now one of the instructors at Cal. I believe she, like you, is the exception that proves the rule. Ask you fellow classmate that is being held back what his/her entering GPA/OAT scores were. I am willing to bet they were on the low end, but he/she was one hell of a cheerleader in undergrad.

About performing in undergrad, please don't give me the sob story about no preparation and little guidance. I had a 2.08 GPA after my first quarter because of "extracurricular activities". I wasn't prepared for undergrad and had no guidance. I found a way to raise my GPA up to a level that would get me into Cal instead of asking for special treatment because I could shake my thing at basketball games. (OK that last comment was a joke)

 

[Ben Chudner]

Maybe the problem isn't the number of students being admitted. Maybe you all have a problem with the number of students passing their boards, because no matter how a person gets in, as long as they pass their boards they can practice...which leads to this "saturation" of ODs...not OD students.

You're right. The answer to the saturation problem is to decrease the number of optometry students that can take the boards. There could be a minimum optometry school GPA required to even sit for the boards. Of course all cheerleaders will be allowed to sit for the boards with a lower GPA than the rest.

 

[still_confused]

cheerleader ODs probably get the most customers and make the most money

 

[jlc111]

Until the board passing rate is one hundred percent, I will still argue that those that fail were on the bottom end of the range of entering GPA's. If someone has access to the study (if there is one) that was brought up on another thread, I would appreciate it. But as iiimonica suggests, we should just agree to disagree.

Ben,

There was a fairly extensive study few years back that shows that M.D.’s who graduated from historically black medical schools and Caribbean medical schools have far more medical mistakes that those graduated from other U.S. medical schools even though they all passed the medical boards. While the study found that the education and training are the same in all medical schools, the undergraduate GPA’s and MCAT scores were substantially lower in the historically black and Caribbean schools. The study concluded that this is the cause of the discrepancy.

So, I think that your thinking is right on the money. Those O.D.s who had lower undergraduate GPA would mostly likely under-perform in school and after they graduate.
Fortunately these O.D. will just work in a vision mill doing refraction rather than killing people like the M.D.'s who have low GPA’s.

One more reason to reduce class sizes.

 

[iiiimonica]

Ouch, that is about a $100,000 dollar mistake (extra tuition year, and a whole year of missed practicing salary). Why did you take on so many on responsiblities when your first and foremost should have been OD school? Sorry not trying to be judgemental and I wish you the best throughout the rest of school.

everyone kept syaing how "easy" the first year is, how "grades don't matter" and i didn't think that i couldn''t do it. WRONG! plus i've alsways been able to juggle ec's and school - but not this time! i don't think about the money lost, because really what would that accomplish? i made a mistake, i've learned form this. life goes on. and if you really think you can make $100,000 your first year out..

 

[iiiimonica]

I now understand why you are so passionate about this topic. I really like how you repeated yourself in caps so that I would get your point. The problem is that you missed mine. I never said that students, like yourself, that have to repeat a year take the spot of a someone in the next class. They wasted a spot in their original class. For example, if you would have just waited a year and gotten yourself prepared for optometry school, someone else could have taken your original spot, and then you could enter a year later (graduate in the same year as you will now anyway) and you could have taken the spot of one of the students in your new class that is going to be held back.


About performing in undergrad, please don't give me the sob story about no preparation and little guidance. I had a 2.08 GPA after my first quarter because of "extracurricular activities". I wasn't prepared for undergrad and had no guidance. I found a way to raise my GPA up to a level that would get me into Cal instead of asking for special treatment because I could shake my thing at basketball games. (OK that last comment was a joke)

i was prepared for optometry school. i just wasn't prepared for teaching an undergrad class, holding office, my marriage and od school all at once. waiting to the next year to apply would not have made me prepared for taking on too much, i just would have taken on too much a year later. it was a lesson that i had to learn the hard way.

i'm glad that YOU were able to pull yourself up. good job. not all students are Ben Chudner. i have spent much time (one of those ec's i had so many of) tutoring and mentoring students, who like myself, had limited educational opprutunities growing up. as a "success story" i can't count the number of times i've sat on panels and in planning commisions for education reform. it's not as simple as "i did it, so should you!" if this was true more students from disadvantaged backgrounds would gradute. if trying hard and working your butt off were enough, graduation rates wouldn't be so low. sure some do it, but too many fall through the cracks and don't. you can say i am being to wishy washy on this, but i have seen the research, i've been involved in the planning and the disparities in education between the haves and the have nots are real.

 

[Ryan_eyeball]

everyone kept syaing how "easy" the first year is, how "grades don't matter" and i didn't think that i couldn''t do it. WRONG! plus i've alsways been able to juggle ec's and school - but not this time! i don't think about the money lost, because really what would that accomplish? i made a mistake, i've learned form this. life goes on. and if you really think you can make $100,000 your first year out..

I'm not saying you can or will make a 100k your first year out. But by the time you figure in an extra year of living expenses (food, gas, apartment rent, clothes, entertainment) tuition (what 17k average), and finally a salary. I'd say that would be close to a 100k. Then not to mention the respect your classmates have lost for you (upper and your entering mates). I know no one held as much respect for those that had to repeat at my school. I'm just stating a generality at my school, maybe it won't happen at yours.

And yeah I think any income is achievable in a certain situation if the supply/demand is there.

I would stop listening to others and making assumptions off them at your school. Chance favors the prepared mind =)

 

[iiiimonica]

I'm not saying you can or will make a 100k your first year out. But by the time you figure in an extra year of living expenses (food, gas, apartment rent, clothes, entertainment) tuition (what 17k average), and finally a salary. I'd say that would be close to a 100k. Then not to mention the respect your classmates have lost for you (upper and your entering mates). I know no one held as much respect for those that had to repeat at my school. I'm just stating a generality at my school, maybe it won't happen at yours.

And yeah I think any income is achievable in a certain situation if the supply/demand is there.

I would stop listening to others and making assumptions off them at your school. Chance favors the prepared mind =)

wow thanks for kicking me while i am down. i guess they don't teach empathy at your school.

my former classmates love me, the amount of support and good wishes i have gotten is amazing. the support i've gotten from faculty has been awesome. they really want me to succeed and understand that I MADE A MISTAKE. my new classmates will love me, and if someone does not respect me, what can i do? you can't change how others percieve you. i can't go into a time machine and redo last year.

your message was the opposite of helpful or supportive, why would you even write that? did it make you feel good to point out the negativity? did you think i haven't though about the money or respect issues? you might want to take a second to think about what you write next time you want to be helpful.

and it was not even close to 100k, and if it was, why do you care so much? it was my money to lose.

sure any income is achievable - but 100k your first year? and don't talk supply/demand with me, i have a degree (w/honors!) in econ.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Ben,

There was a fairly extensive study few years back that shows that M.D.’s who graduated from historically black medical schools and Caribbean medical schools have far more medical mistakes that those graduated from other U.S. medical schools even though they all passed the medical boards. While the study found that the education and training are the same in all medical schools, the undergraduate GPA’s and MCAT scores were substantially lower in the historically black and Caribbean schools. The study concluded that this is the cause of the discrepancy.

So, I think that your thinking is right on the money. Those O.D.s who had lower undergraduate GPA would mostly likely under-perform in school and after they graduate.
Fortunately these O.D. will just work in a vision mill doing refraction rather than killing people like the M.D.'s who have low GPA’s.

One more reason to reduce class sizes.

Any chance you could find that study again and link it?

 

[Ryan_eyeball]

wow thanks for kicking me while i am down. i guess they don't teach empathy at your school.

my former classmates love me, the amount of support and good wishes i have gotten is amazing. the support i've gotten from faculty has been awesome. they really want me to succeed and understand that I MADE A MISTAKE. my new classmates will love me, and if someone does not respect me, what can i do? you can't change how others percieve you. i can't go into a time machine and redo last year.

your message was the opposite of helpful or supportive, why would you even write that? did it make you feel good to point out the negativity? did you think i haven't though about the money or respect issues? you might want to take a second to think about what you write next time you want to be helpful.

and it was not even close to 100k, and if it was, why do you care so much? it was my money to lose.

sure any income is achievable - but 100k your first year? and don't talk supply/demand with me, i have a degree (w/honors!) in econ.

Congratulations, at least you always an econ degree to fall back on =). I'm glad your former classmates love you. If your talking about 1st year private practice, of course there is no way to make 100k. Some places that I knew of before I moved out of st. louis that were corporate would pay close to 100k in salary. Of course, your salary in corporate is almost always going to be pretty fixed, and no chance for growth.

Tuition 17k
Living expenses 10k
Starting 1st year salary lost 73-75k
Total for one lost year $100 to 102k

I was trying to let other pre-optometry students see the huge ramifications of repeating a year of OD school. Any first year to an institution (i.e high school, college, and esp OD school) are big steps. Proper preparation, and responsibility have to be put in to succeed. First years were always the hardest for me and signficantly eased throughout the rest of my 4 years.

 

[gsinccom]

I agree. You guys have been pretty ruthless to 4eyemonica. Try and be more friendly to her as obviously she has been hard enough on herself. Ok

I have a question for you Ryan_eyeball. You just graduated from OD school, correct? Will you make 73-75K this year? Do you have benefits too? What is your practice setting; do you have a website so that we can see it? What are you long-term goals concerning your optometry career?

 

[KHE]

i was prepared for optometry school. i just wasn't prepared for teaching an undergrad class, holding office, my marriage and od school all at once. waiting to the next year to apply would not have made me prepared for taking on too much, i just would have taken on too much a year later. it was a lesson that i had to learn the hard way.

i'm glad that YOU were able to pull yourself up. good job. not all students are Ben Chudner. i have spent much time (one of those ec's i had so many of) tutoring and mentoring students, who like myself, had limited educational opprutunities growing up. as a "success story" i can't count the number of times i've sat on panels and in planning commisions for education reform. it's not as simple as "i did it, so should you!" if this was true more students from disadvantaged backgrounds would gradute. if trying hard and working your butt off were enough, graduation rates wouldn't be so low. sure some do it, but too many fall through the cracks and don't. you can say i am being to wishy washy on this, but i have seen the research, i've been involved in the planning and the disparities in education between the haves and the have nots are real.

I must have missed something. Did you repeat a year of undergraduate or are you going to repeat a year of optometry school?

I also take strong exception to your notion that working your butt off is not enough with respect to high school and college educations. I have taught in a very underprivledged school district that was almost exclusively minority. The disparaites between the have and have nots amount to very little in my humble opinion.

I have students that perform poorly. I have students that excel tremendously yet they all are very poor and come from immigrant families. The ones that do very well (almost exlusively Asian in origin) live in families were education is valued, and poor performance is not tollerated. But the parents aside, the students THEMSELVES have ambition. They have lofty goals for themselves.

ON the flip side, the poor performing students almost all come from families where education is not valued. But the students THEMSELVES have atrocious attitudes. They have no goals for themselves. Ask them what their plans for the future are and they will almost exlusively respond with "singer, rapper, or athlete."

I have learned in my tenure of teaching high schoolers that if you want an education, there is no school, teacher, or person in the world who can stop you from getting it, regardless of your situation. If you don't want an education, there is no school, teacher or person in the world who can force one on you. (also regardless on your situation. I have taught in a snotty Connecticut prep school where the kids were all the children of EXTREMELY wealthy people. And there are recalcitrant students there who fail to achieve and they have every conceivable opportunity at their feet.)

It is ALL about attitude.