New Optometry Schools vs. Established Ones

[drumstix]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey all,
I have read thoroughly the 'stigma' of new schools and how people should "avoid them like the plague" as one poster said. But, what I'm wondering is, at some point, all schools were new, so ignoring all of the politics of the new schools, does this argument hold water still? For instance, Nova's College of Optometry was established some 25 years ago in the 1990s. I guess I'm wondering if the older schools back then were saying the things that we see now about the newest schools like Midwestern, Western, MCPHS, etc.? And now, a couple of decades later, Nova is a good school to go to.

I'm looking for a good and thorough examination of this issue. The older ODs I'm sure can shed some great light on this issue.

 

[Boundless]

Well, you will learn essentially the same techniques in every school. Some of the newer ones actually have better/newer technology. But some people will argue that the older schools' professors know how to better prepare you for the boards.

I currently attend MCPHS, so if you have any other questions, just let me know. The program has huge potential and I feel one day it will be a distinguished one.

I couldn't tell you how past new schools have been treated, but I suspect they were once stigmatized, too. Just not as badly as the ones in the last few years.

 

[OhhDee]

I basically agree with your point, but it hasn't been 25yrs, a decade, or whatever yet. The programs aren't as fine-tuned as the established schools.

Plus a big part of getting a good job post-graduation is via alumni. That is where the new schools are severely lacking. Because fair or not, the negative view on new schools is there.

 

[OpticalBlackOut]

Reminds me of this thread:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=994364

 

[drumstix]

I basically agree with your point, but it hasn't been 25yrs, a decade, or whatever yet. The programs aren't as fine-tuned as the established schools.

Plus a big part of getting a good job post-graduation is via alumni. That is where the new schools are severely lacking. Because fair or not, the negative view on new schools is there.

Ahh, I overlooked the job-alumni network point. Thanks for that. Yes, I agree from that perspective I can see how alums from new schools can have a hard time finding employment.

But I think the trend is that after a certain amount of time, these things will slowly fade away as newer schools emerge and take the spotlight away from them.

 

[irisiris]

@Boundless You go to MCPHS? I've applied there, and am really intrigued by the school. Alot of internet sleuthing about the school makes me believe I would actually really enjoy going there. Do you have any more information or advice based on your experiences there? 🙂

 

[leekaifu]

Good,these things will slowly fade away as newer schools emerge and take the spotlight away from them.

 

[drumstix]

:troll:

Good,these things will slowly fade away as newer schools emerge and take the spotlight away from them.

 

[PinkCupcake]

The major problem with the new schools is that they will not adequately prepare you for the boards/are unaccredited (meaning even if you pass boards you can't apply for a license because your school isn't recognized). It takes years for new programs to work out the mechanics of curriculum and the best way to present material so that students will retain what is necessary to pass boards and be an effective clinician. Schools that have been around for 40+ years have this down to a science and know exactly what to do to prepare their students. Not to mention they have the ability to attract the best professors to instruct students because they have an established reputation.

I have no idea why anyone would choose an unaccredited school over one that is accredited with a couple of decades experience behind them.

 

[mkbarnes]

The major problem with the new schools is that they will not adequately prepare you for the boards/are unaccredited (meaning even if you pass boards you can't apply for a license because your school isn't recognized). It takes years for new programs to work out the mechanics of curriculum and the best way to present material so that students will retain what is necessary to pass boards and be an effective clinician. Schools that have been around for 40+ years have this down to a science and know exactly what to do to prepare their students. Not to mention they have the ability to attract the best professors to instruct students because they have an established reputation.

I have no idea why anyone would choose an unaccredited school over one that is accredited with a couple of decades experience behind them.

All the newer schools are now accredited. This happened in March/April of 2013.

 

[Loptometriste]

All the newer schools are now accredited. This happened in March/April of 2013.

MCPHS and Appalachian are NOT accredited.

 

[mkbarnes]

MCPHS and Appalachian are NOT accredited.

Sorry, I was referring to Midwestern University, RSO, and Western University as being the new ones that are now accredited.

 

[drumstix]

MCPHS and Appalachian are NOT accredited.

I don't even think that Appalachian is open for business yet.