Midwestern university optometry unaccredited

[ASharp83]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I think that the school is nice and all, but the main part of it being accredited is having around a 90% board passing rate. If the 1st class gets 50% on the boards this will surely impede the accreditation process. And not tryin to complain but there are barely any patients in the new eye institute, I don't know how the school is gonna get more patients for the students in their 3rd year to gain more clinical experience.
But does anyone know about schools not getting accredited? And, what would be the job outlook for an experienced inaugerating class out of a new school?

 

[DawgOD]

1) I'm sure this could have gone in another thread.

2) 50%? really? I highly doubt the 1st class does that bad. 70%.. okay.. but 50.. they are not being taught by idiots.

3) As far as job outlook... I'm sure some don't care where you went to school as long as you prove to them that you will be an asset to their practice. But then you have some really simple minded people who will look down on you just because you attended a new school.

 

[Shnurek]

Its like going to Harvard vs. a community college for undergrad. Lets say you want to practice in Arizona after you graduate. People will be receptive but might still prefer someone from an established school. (A lot of optometrists are not happy with the new schools) Your best chances would be to stay in Arizona/the surrounding states for the best employment. Because if you choose to go to California for example...the interviewers obviously are going to ask what school did you finish because there are 3 in California and there is intense competition.

Once you do a residency and practice for a few years or stay in practice for 4-6 years it doesn't really matter what school you went to anymore because the experience evens out eventually. The advantage most students get from coming from high pathology schools like SUNY, IAUPR, SCO and others, is they get the entry level advantage. Except for IAUPR, that might be looked down upon even if it is high pathology.

In the end, people say you can practice anywhere but life works itself out that most people end up practicing in the region they go to school in.

 

[Possiblyoptomet]

Its like going to Harvard vs. a community college for undergrad. Lets say you want to practice in Arizona after you graduate. People will be receptive but might still prefer someone from an established school. (A lot of optometrists are not happy with the new schools) Your best chances would be to stay in Arizona/the surrounding states for the best employment. Because if you choose to go to California for example...the interviewers obviously are going to ask what school did you finish because there are 3 in California and there is intense competition.

Once you do a residency and practice for a few years or stay in practice for 4-6 years it doesn't really matter what school you went to anymore because the experience evens out eventually. The advantage most students get from coming from high pathology schools like SUNY, IAUPR, SCO and others, is they get the entry level advantage. Except for IAUPR, that might be looked down upon even if it is high pathology.

In the end, people say you can practice anywhere but life works itself out that most people end up practicing in the region they go to school in.

So, Midwestern has a new clinic with few patients and they are not accredited and have a very inexperienced faculty. I hear the new school in Texas is a mess and Midwestern is right there with the new Texas school. Why go to a new school when you can go to an established accredited school and hit the ground running when you get a license?
You have to be able to pay the loans back and compete in the workplace for jobs. Just some thoughts.

 

[kftetrault]

So, Midwestern has a new clinic with few patients and they are not accredited and have a very inexperienced faculty. I hear the new school in Texas is a mess and Midwestern is right there with the new Texas school. Why go to a new school when you can go to an established accredited school and hit the ground running when you get a license?
You have to be able to pay the loans back and compete in the workplace for jobs. Just some thoughts.

Yeah, I will say that Midwestern is not a 'mess'. While some members of our faculty our young, we also have very experienced members. The fact is that accreditation takes a minimum of FOUR YEARS, i.e. a class must graduate. I can see people making this argument if we aren't accredited after the first time, but NO MWU program has ever been denied accreditation. NONE. People who try and make this argument are just being alarmist.
As an MWU student, I will gladly dispel any of the false, hurtful rumors that are spread on this website. MWU is a great school with good people, and is immune to all the vitriol that flies on this website.

 

[Optogal]

Yeah, I will say that Midwestern is not a 'mess'. While some members of our faculty our young, we also have very experienced members. The fact is that accreditation takes a minimum of FOUR YEARS, i.e. a class must graduate. I can see people making this argument if we aren't accredited after the first time, but NO MWU program has ever been denied accreditation. NONE. People who try and make this argument are just being alarmist.
As an MWU student, I will gladly dispel any of the false, hurtful rumors that are spread on this website. MWU is a great school with good people, and is immune to all the vitriol that flies on this website.

It's OK to stand up to rumors etc., but "immune to all the vitriol"? What vitriol? You're being a bit defensive. And if it's so "immune" as you claim it to be, then why do you feel the need to defend it?

It's OK for people to raise legitimate concerns with the new schools. It is fact that they AREN'T as established as the established schools.

Anyways - if you wanted to avoid any folks raising concerns about your school and the education you are receiving, then you shouldn't have gone to Arizona. That's not the same thing as saying that the education you are receiving is poor.

 

[vieromanxx]

Its like going to Harvard vs. a community college for undergrad. Lets say you want to practice in Arizona after you graduate. People will be receptive but might still prefer someone from an established school. (A lot of optometrists are not happy with the new schools) Your best chances would be to stay in Arizona/the surrounding states for the best employment. Because if you choose to go to California for example...the interviewers obviously are going to ask what school did you finish because there are 3 in California and there is intense competition.

Once you do a residency and practice for a few years or stay in practice for 4-6 years it doesn't really matter what school you went to anymore because the experience evens out eventually. The advantage most students get from coming from high pathology schools like SUNY, IAUPR, SCO and others, is they get the entry level advantage. Except for IAUPR, that might be looked down upon even if it is high pathology.


-------

WHAT FACTS are you basing this on??

 

[Shnurek]

WHAT FACTS are you basing this on??

Just my own speculation, feel free to state your own opinion. There are very few "facts" in the psychology/sociology of people and how they take what school you went to.

 

[ABaverage]

False analogy:

New OD school : old OD school :: community college:harvard