New Schools Hurting the Profession

[IndianaOD]

Several pre-opts on here don't understand how bad the new OD schools are for the profession.

Lets put aside the huge problem of OD oversupply which hurts all ODs and just look at the admission numbers.

The three new schools are solidly in the bottom 3 of GPA averages for the mainland US schools. I'm not sure how anyone could not say that they are lowing the average quality of OD student.

The average entering OD student GPA was on a slow but steady increase until the 3 unnecessary schools opened up. A bunch of students who would not have been qualified before.

Pretty sad for us all.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jc812]

i do believe that national boards are what keeps us all on the "same level" in the end.

 

[chic4rm714]

i understand the argument of supply and demand...but i'd also like to know why so many people believe that graduates from these schools will be at a disadvantage. it seems as if the faculty at, say Western U, are established professors and scholars from other schools of optometry. Please enlighten me. TIA

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

i do believe that national boards are what keeps us all on the "same level" in the end.

If I'm not mistaken, I suspect he's referring to the issue of respect from the other fields. If average admission GPA was 3.6 last year and now, with the addition of these 3 new schools, is closer to 3.3, that can lead some to suggest that since OD school is "easier" to get into that y'all aren't as competent to provide medical care as others (MD/DO being the main ones that give you guys crap about it).

 

[IndianaOD]

If I'm not mistaken, I suspect he's referring to the issue of respect from the other fields. If average admission GPA was 3.6 last year and now, with the addition of these 3 new schools, is closer to 3.3, that can lead some to suggest that since OD school is "easier" to get into that y'all aren't as competent to provide medical care as others (MD/DO being the main ones that give you guys crap about it).

This is true, but also the quality of student. I want the best and brightest as colleagues because they will reflect on me in the future.

I don't want a bunch of "just getting by" OD students out there making the profession look bad. I can't prove this but I also believe there is some correlation between GPA and working for commercial joints.

The average GPA of OD students WAS statistically the same as dental and DO students and closing the gap with MD. Of course you can find MD schools with lower averages than some OD schools but I am talking overall.

The average GPAs of these schools is embarrassing IMHO.

 

[Optogal]

Can you provide the numbers?

 

[Arctic]

Here's Western U's stats:
Avg. GPA 3.11
AA OAT 330
TS OAT 342

Especially the OAT scores, I would never consider embarrassingly low. In fact, they are very close to most other optometry programs. The Avg. GPA is around .2-.3 points lower than many of the established schools. I'll admit that is significant, however IndianaOD is overstating the case that the new schools are filled with low-quality applicants because he wants them to be closed in order to help curb the oversupply problem.

 

[achirum]

Here's Western U's stats:
Avg. GPA 3.11
AA OAT 330
TS OAT 342

Especially the OAT scores, I would never consider embarrassingly low. In fact, they are very close to most other optometry programs. The Avg. GPA is around .2-.3 points lower than many of the established schools. I'll admit that is significant, however IndianaOD is overstating the case that the new schools are filled with low-quality applicants because he wants them to be closed in order to help curb the oversupply problem.

Good point. The GPA is quite lower than most schools however. Salus had the lowest entering GPA of the established schools (sans Puerto Rico) at 3.33. So I'd say GPA is more on the region of .3-.4 points lower than most schools.

As for the OAT: the TS is on par while the AA is just a bit lower.

I'm not contributing to the new schools opening debate, I don't want to get into it, I am just talking statistics.

On another note, it would be interesting to know how many people were accepted to a new school and an established school, and chose the new school over it.

I think that would at least give us an idea of whether or not these new schools are indeed filled with people who couldn't get in anywhere else.

 

[iiii]

1. New schools open creating 100 more slots (not needed in his opinion)
2. New schools will attract 75-80% of their students from those who couldn't/shouldn't be accepted anywhere and the the other 20-25% who chose a new school for another reason (geographic proximity, fell for sales pitch, etc).
3. Existing schools suddenly have their last 10 slots to fill with underqualified applicants who they would have rejected previously.
4. The entire first year class is weaker statistically and quality-wise across the board for all schools.
5. In 4 years, a flood of 100 more new grads have to compete for a dwindling number of good opportunities. More are foreced to work commercial or PT in 2-3 different locations.
6. Salaries and job satisfaction goes down.
7. The best & brightest no longer view optometry as a promisomg profession and the applicant pool becomes even worse.

He still loves his job and makes a great living but says the odds of me having what he has are getting worse and worse.

 

[Arctic]

Oversupply could be a substantial problem, no doubt. The AOA just doesn't seem strong enough to do much about it, though. I still can't stand propaganda, and we'll all see just how bad (or not bad) the new schools ODs will be once their first class is tested.

 

[blazenmadison]

Several pre-opts on here don't understand how bad the new OD schools are for the profession.

Lets put aside the huge problem of OD oversupply which hurts all ODs and just look at the admission numbers.

The three new schools are solidly in the bottom 3 of GPA averages for the mainland US schools. I'm not sure how anyone could not say that they are lowing the average quality of OD student.

The average entering OD student GPA was on a slow but steady increase until the 3 unnecessary schools opened up. A bunch of students who would not have been qualified before.

Pretty sad for us all.

The students at Midwestern (AZ) seem to have it together. During their 1st year they already started a private practice club. The Banzai group (invitation only group of highly successful OD's) seem to be pumping some energy into that school. http://envisionpe.com/

Also, the Neuro Optometric Rehabilitation Association (NORA) and the International Congress of Behavioral Optometry (ICBO) will be holding its annual meeting at Western University (CA) to expand its TBI program this summer. Western is living up to its goal of being a neuro/TBI school.

There is nothing you can do now to stop them from operating. So let's hope they contribute postively to optometry.

 

[RTM]

Several pre-opts on here don't understand how bad the new OD schools are for the profession.

Lets put aside the huge problem of OD oversupply which hurts all ODs and just look at the admission numbers.

The three new schools are solidly in the bottom 3 of GPA averages for the mainland US schools. I'm not sure how anyone could not say that they are lowing the average quality of OD student.

The average entering OD student GPA was on a slow but steady increase until the 3 unnecessary schools opened up. A bunch of students who would not have been qualified before.

Pretty sad for us all.

This is simply untrue. Slightly lower GPAs do not equate with a lower quality of student. That's silly. Heading a residency program and also having years of students has taught me that GPA is a very poor indicator of clinical competency.
I'll tell you what is sad for optometry. . . It's low quality ODs!!! It's just that simple. To blame it all on our schools is ******ed. Also, trying to extrapolate between entering GPA from GE courses along with pre-reqs to a quality clinician is misguided. The grade you got in that required english course at State has very little relevance here. Admit it, we all learned everything we know about practice from practice. Student rotations and, hopefully, a good mentored residency experience. Also, the truely progressive OD, has also continued to learn in daily practice. Not all of ODs are so inclined. Some are content to count to 2 all day and then count the proceeds at night.
The objection to additional schools, it seems to me from reading the quote, is related to the business side of optometry. If my bottom line revolved around selling glasses, I suppose I wouldn't like new optometry schools. But since it doesn't, I feel like I have a clear view not clouded by monetary issues. Yes, health care is a business too, but we need to keep clinic issues and business issues separate.

Under a microscope, sure optometry has problems just like any health care specialty. If we want to begin to change our profession, we need to start by getting a bigger mirror, not fighting new schools with the power to expand our profession.

Peace.

 

[lnh]

This is simply untrue. Slightly lower GPAs do not equate with a lower quality of student. That's silly. Heading a residency program and also having years of students has taught me that GPA is a very poor indicator of clinical competency.
I'll tell you what is sad for optometry. . . It's low quality ODs!!! It's just that simple. To blame it all on our schools is ******ed. Also, trying to extrapolate between entering GPA from GE courses along with pre-reqs to a quality clinician is misguided. The grade you got in that required english course at State has very little relevance here. Admit it, we all learned everything we know about practice from practice. Student rotations and, hopefully, a good mentored residency experience. Also, the truely progressive OD, has also continued to learn in daily practice. Not all of ODs are so inclined. Some are content to count to 2 all day and then count the proceeds at night.
The objection to additional schools, it seems to me from reading the quote, is related to the business side of optometry. If my bottom line revolved around selling glasses, I suppose I wouldn't like new optometry schools. But since it doesn't, I feel like I have a clear view not clouded by monetary issues. Yes, health care is a business too, but we need to keep clinic issues and business issues separate.

Under a microscope, sure optometry has problems just like any health care specialty. If we want to begin to change our profession, we need to start by getting a bigger mirror, not fighting new schools with the power to expand our profession.

Peace.

 

[Commando303]

I feel much too much is being made of the three schools that have opened in the 21st century. Are they simply for people who can't get in anywhere else? I thought that's why there was Puerto Rico. Look at it this way: the number still is twenty-one. Judging how many is too many, or how few not enough, is extremely arbitrary. Was eighteen an acceptable number? Should S.U.N.Y. Optometry never have been established during the 1970s?

Over-saturation of a field is problematic, but this talk of lowering standards seems plainly silly; let's at least wait to see how these new colleges' students fare on board examinations. First, the new schools' entering-class statistics aren't very different from the numbers of many of the older colleges just at the beginning of the 2000s. Second, if people are qualified to do something, but there aren't enough seats, we can't possibly feel the situation is correct. Last, who can justifiably claim G.P.A.s are a sound indicator of whether students will make competent optometrists? Even if we can decide grades correlate with intelligence (which, really, we can't, because we first must agree what we mean by "intelligence"), it's just absurd to argue more intelligent people make better eye doctors. Don't quickly quote that line then reply with mockery: You can be a brilliant person who's a terrible doctor, or someone who has only a sound understanding of his field and provides excellent care to his patients.

Let's all take a breath, here.

 

[KHE]

I feel much too much is being made of the three schools that have opened in the 21st century. Are they simply for people who can't get in anywhere else? I thought that's why there was Puerto Rico. Look at it this way: the number still is twenty-one. Judging how many is too many, or how few not enough, is extremely arbitrary. Was eighteen an acceptable number? Should S.U.N.Y. Optometry never have been established during the 1970s?

SUNY was actually started after the school at Columbia University was discontinued. So it really wasn't a "new" school.

Over-saturation of a field is problematic, but this talk of lowering standards seems plainly silly; let's at least wait to see how these new colleges' students fare on board examinations. First, the new schools' entering-class statistics aren't very different from the numbers of many of the older colleges just at the beginning of the 2000s. Second, if people are qualified to do something, but there aren't enough seats, we can't possibly feel the situation is correct. Last, who can justifiably claim G.P.A.s are a sound indicator of whether students will make competent optometrists? Even if we can decide grades correlate with intelligence (which, really, we can't, because we first must agree what we mean by "intelligence"), it's just absurd to argue more intelligent people make better eye doctors. Don't quickly quote that line then reply with mockery: You can be a brilliant person who's a terrible doctor, or someone who has only a sound understanding of his field and provides excellent care to his patients.

Let's all take a breath, here.

Yes, we can all find examples of high academic achievers who would make lousy clinicians. The issue seems to be "why can't optometry attract enough high achievers who would ALSO make good clinicians."

Why is optometry forced to scrounge the bottom of the academic bucket to fill a class?

What percentage of students admitted to dental, pharmacy, or medical school have sub 3.0 GPAs? How does that compare to optometry?

 

[Commando303]

SUNY was actually started after the school at Columbia University was discontinued. So it really wasn't a "new" school.

I didn't know that. So, was it considered more a "replacement" than a new school? But, if it had no connection with the previous college, wouldn't people still have accused it of low standards, etc.?

Yes, we can all find examples of high academic achievers who would make lousy clinicians. The issue seems to be "why can't optometry attract enough high achievers who would ALSO make good clinicians."

Why is optometry forced to scrounge the bottom of the academic bucket to fill a class?

What percentage of students admitted to dental, pharmacy, or medical school have sub 3.0 GPAs? How does that compare to optometry?

I don't know if that is the question. Is there a general sentiment that optometrists provide poor service?

The fact seems to be, it's easier to become an optometrist than to become, say, an M.D. (at least, it's easier to get into a college of optometry than to be accepted by an M.D.-granting institution). That said, I think almost every school of optometry, over the past couple of decades, has been receiving entering classes with ever-higher G.P.A.s. Not only is taking a student with a G.P.A. of 3.2 not, in my opinion, "scraping the bottom of the barrel," colleges of eye-medicine appear to have been staying closer to the barrel's top, in recent times (what percentage of them do accept applicants with sub-3.0 G.P.A.s?).

Back to the topic of the three new colleges: The hostility does, to me, seem unfounded and flamboyant. Of course, there's little chance I'll join the burn-them-down bandwagon, and there's likely as little I'll covert a zealot -- so, this might (you never know...) be my sign-off message on this topic.

 

[EyEnStein 07]

From the statistics that I quickly gathered:

Roughly 58 accredited dental schools in the USA

Roughly 100 accredited pharmacy schools in the USA

Roughly 131 accredited medical schools in the USA

I don't know the percentage of students admitted into these programs with sub 3.0 grade point averages; however, I would assume there is a handful. I'm sure those admitted have stellar DAT, PCAT, and MCAT scores to compensate for their lower grade point averages. Also, I feel the competition within the applicant pool of dental and pharmacy students is quite similar to optometry school applicants. Am I wrong?

I think this is a fair assessment, though i probably wouldnt go as far as to say handful for all. AMCAS (for medical students) shows statistics, and i believe it is a rare case for someone to get in with a 3.0 GPA (or less) even with a high MCAT score. There have been...its just extremely rare. In regards to Osteopathic medicine, the numbers are a little lower, but still MCAT but most retake improve on atleast something and then apply.

PCAT i am not sure of....but when i have loads of free time i go into the dental forums and some students post that they might have...3.2 GPAs or 3.3's...and usually others post with a DAT to compensate, they could get in to Dental School. Now of course there are those selective dental schools that are much harder to get into, but isnt there also Optometry schools that are "harder" to get into? (ex: Suny and Berkeley *dont bash me on this, im just giving examples). I think its similar but not even since, there are many more dental schools than optometry schools.

Maybe Optometry is not as popular because there just arent 50+ schools like the rest of them.

 

[Optogal]

this talk of lowering standards seems plainly silly; let's at least wait to see how these new colleges' students fare on board examinations.

Chances are, grads of the new schools will fare incrementally worse than the folks from other schools. Not a lot worse, but something measurable in percentage points, similar to how their GPA is just slightly off.

As such, the trend will still remain an overwhelming overlap in terms of performance with students at the established schools. Those who want to defend the new schools will point to this overlap to evidence that they are producing essentially "equally" competent clinicians. Those who are against it will point to the fact that they, on average, perform (just slightly) worse than everyone else.

There is no question that GPA doesn't correlate perfectly with being a good OD. Anecdotally, we all know of several folks who just got by and are doing more than well. But the issue is - optometry is an academic endeavor, and education is an academic pursuit. If we don't use GPA as the primary means of selection, then what criteria do we use?

 

[KHE]

I don't know if that is the question. Is there a general sentiment that optometrists provide poor service?

I don't really think so. But with three new schools statisically taking students with lower GPAs, is that something that could happen in the future? In other words, is accepting students with substantially lower GPAs on average a GOOD thing for the profession? At BEST, it's neutral.

The fact seems to be, it's easier to become an optometrist than to become, say, an M.D. (at least, it's easier to get into a college of optometry than to be accepted by an M.D.-granting institution). That said, I think almost every school of optometry, over the past couple of decades, has been receiving entering classes with ever-higher G.P.A.s. Not only is taking a student with a G.P.A. of 3.2 not, in my opinion, "scraping the bottom of the barrel," colleges of eye-medicine appear to have been staying closer to the barrel's top, in recent times (what percentage of them do accept applicants with sub-3.0 G.P.A.s?).

Couple of separate issues there:

Yes, it's "easier" to become an optometrist than a physician and admittance to schools is less competitive on average to schools of optometry. That's a given because the MD degree is still the societal "gold medal" in terms of prestige, and usually earning power. The question is WHY is it SO MUCH less competitive in optometry that too many schools are accepting large numbers of sub 3.0 students? And do other "non-MD" granting careers like dentistry and pharmacy have the same issue? Are there large numbers (percentage wise) of sub 3.0 students being admitted to dental and pharmacy programs?

 

[KHE]

There is no question that GPA doesn't correlate perfectly with being a good OD. Anecdotally, we all know of several folks who just got by and are doing more than well. But the issue is - optometry is an academic endeavor, and education is an academic pursuit. If we don't use GPA as the primary means of selection, then what criteria do we use?

Brilliant.

 

[KHE]

I don't know the percentage of students admitted into these programs with sub 3.0 grade point averages; however, I would assume there is a handful. I'm sure those admitted have stellar DAT, PCAT, and MCAT scores to compensate for their lower grade point averages. Also, I feel the competition within the applicant pool of dental and pharmacy students is quite similar to optometry school applicants. Am I wrong?.[/COLOR]

I do not know either. That's what I'm asking here.

 

[Arctic]

One would think that standardized test scores would be at least as good of an indicator as gpa, right? I'd go with OAT scores over gpa (to a degree) most of the time. And the OAT and DAT are nearly identical (and dentistry doesn't seem to have this problem), so even though I don't think the OAT is a particularly difficult exam, I wouldn't call it too easy, either.

 

[Commando303]

I think you can't really say that: Some people are simply bad test-takers but do well in classes, which typically aren't based entirely on one big exam.

 

[Arctic]

Well, the 'bad test-takers' argument is about as valid against both standardized tests and gpa, so I don't think it is useful here. At the end of the day, in most university classes, a student's grade is almost entirely based off of tests. At my undergrad, I'd say it was common for 80-90% of my grade in a class to be directly from tests.

 

[jymezg]

I think you can't really say that: Some people are simply bad test-takers but do well in classes, which typically aren't based entirely on one big exam.

The "bad-test taker" argument. uhg.

Its a good thing boards aren't one big exam...

 

[Commando303]

The "bad-test taker" argument. uhg.

Its a good thing boards aren't one big exam...

No, my "bad–test-takers argument" isn't meant to suggest schools shouldn't look at the O.A.T. to decide who gets in; I simply mean to refute the idea the test is a better indicator of ability than one's G.P.A.

 

[jymezg]

No, my "bad–test-takers argument" isn't meant to suggest schools shouldn't look at the O.A.T. to decide who gets in; I simply mean to refute the idea the test is a better indicator of ability than one's G.P.A.

Oh ok I gotcha, my b, thought it was just a "bad-test taker argument" sry

 

[IndianaOD]

GPA encompasses years of work. OAT is a few hours on a single day. No way OAT is more important than your entire GPA. The OAT is necessary because even GPAs can very by school difficulty.

I did a little admissions work with IU during my residency and it was fact that GPA had a very accurate correlation with boards scores.

I still haven't heard any good argument of how accepting lower GPAs into the profession of Optometry is good for it.

 

[Commando303]

GPA encompasses years of work. OAT is a few hours on a single day. No way OAT is more important than your entire GPA. The OAT is necessary because even GPAs can very by school difficulty.

Agreed. Also, "practically," the O.A.T. might force applicants to re-learn many of the things they were taught over a number of years, thus preparing them for their education at optometry college.

I did a little admissions work with IU during my residency and it was fact that GPA had a very accurate correlation with boards scores.

But, we can't admit that as evidence — .

 

[Arctic]

GPA encompasses years of work. OAT is a few hours on a single day. No way OAT is more important than your entire GPA. The OAT is necessary because even GPAs can very by school difficulty.

I did a little admissions work with IU during my residency and it was fact that GPA had a very accurate correlation with boards scores.

I still haven't heard any good argument of how accepting lower GPAs into the profession of Optometry is good for it.

It's funny how now you seem to think that gpa is a fantastic indicator of student performance. A few months ago, when I brought up the fact that the average entering gpa for most optometry schools had been climbing for the past decade (as evidence of a growing number of highly qualified optometry school applicants) you countered by saying that the gpa rise was entirely due to grade inflation........ Hence, that gpa isn't a good indicator???

 

[Commando303]

It's funny how now you seem to think that gpa is a fantastic indicator of student performance. A few months ago, when I brought up the fact that the average entering gpa for most optometry schools had been climbing for the past decade (as evidence of a growing number of highly qualified optometry school applicants) you countered by saying that the gpa rise was entirely due to grade inflation........ Hence, that gpa isn't a good indicator???

I'm at the edge of my seat to learn more about "grade inflation" —!

 

[EyEnStein 07]

I dont think GPA is a better indicator than Exam scores, but that's just me. Sure you need good grades on exams to get a high GPA, but there are just too many variables to consider regarding a GPA.

Standardized Tests may be only for a day, but atleast someone can look at them and see if they can apply what they have learned. Yes, there are "bad test takers", so then there must be "bad grade receivers."
There are many different situations in which a person might get a "low" GPA, which might not be that persons fault directly (e.g school policy).

On a side note...

Has anyone ever seen stats on the "majors" in terms of numbers that apply to optometry schools? Im curious to see what are the popular majors and there correlating GPA (though this probably does not exist).

 

[Commando303]

I dont think GPA is a better indicator than Exam scores, but that's just me. Sure you need good grades on exams to get a high GPA, but there are just too many variables to consider regarding a GPA.

Standardized Tests may be only for a day, but atleast someone can look at them and see if they can apply what they have learned. Yes, there are "bad test takers", so then there must be "bad grade receivers."
There are many different situations in which a person might get a "low" GPA, which might not be that persons fault directly (e.g school policy).

On a side note...

Has anyone ever seen stats on the "majors" in terms of numbers that apply to optometry schools? Im curious to see what are the popular majors and there correlating GPA (though this probably does not exist).

Agreed, some people might be better suited to taking tests than to performing well in the classroom. A few things, though:

1. A college of optometry would care how well an applicant is likely to do in the classroom, because a classroom is exactly what the college will be offering.

2. An exam that went bad did so once -- maybe it was a fluke. If you've consistently done poorly in school, there might be cause for worry.

3. Not every class is based on the ability to memorize a bunch of stuff two days before a test, then spit it out properly; in many, you have to show you're understanding material as it's being taught and are digesting it thoughtfully. Knowing how to answer test questions doesn't mean you'll remember half your answers the day after the exam; it just means you're good at preparing for those critical ~four hours.

I agree with you many things can lend to a poor G.P.A., and they aren't all indicators of (in)ability. Anomalies should be addressed during the interview, if a candidate is given one. Of course no one will disagree, there's no such thing as a perfect system of admission; hell, even after all my talk, I don't know I have firm conviction of what would make the best one.

 

[ibalz]

Several pre-opts on here don't understand how bad the new OD schools are for the profession.

Lets put aside the huge problem of OD oversupply which hurts all ODs and just look at the admission numbers.

The three new schools are solidly in the bottom 3 of GPA averages for the mainland US schools. I'm not sure how anyone could not say that they are lowing the average quality of OD student.

The average entering OD student GPA was on a slow but steady increase until the 3 unnecessary schools opened up. A bunch of students who would not have been qualified before.

Pretty sad for us all.

I can understand the dislike for the new schools.
Let's face it... they won't put a freeze on putting out new grads just to appease the practicing O.D.'s (though I think they should the second after I graduate! )

Isn't this supposed to be a somewhat supportive forum? I know ODwire is out there, with some docs trying to beat the notion of going into optometry out of our heads. I know that some O.D.'s out there would encourage dentistry or pharmacy rather than let a pre-opt shadow. I suppose they have their reasons (many would say financial-self preservation).

Like it or not, we'll be out there. If we play our cards right, we'll practice in areas that can accommodate us. Not all of us will end up as corporate shills.

I am not trying to start a flame war, but I felt I had to speak up because I can't stand all the negativity going on on either board. We aren't out to dilute the earning potential. We aren't out to step on your toes. Give us a little more credit than that.

And before any O.D.'s accuse me of being a naive kid with pie-in-the-sky dreams of grandeur, let me give a little background on myself: I'm a non-trad older student. I have a B.S. in business admin. I have worked in the field for 23 years (longer than some practicing O.D.'s that post here) in many settings and in many capacities. I have been a business owner, an optician, a tech, and a DM. I'm not tooting my own horn, but I've been around the block (a few times more than I care to admit ) and knowing what I know about the profession from the business end, I still decided to enter the profession because I know that there is more than enough room out there for us. Believe me, they'll cart me out feet first before I wear one of Wally's vests

We are intelligent individuals who have done quite a bit of research on many different fields of study, and yet we still made an informed decision to pursue optometry. No field is perfect, and hey, maybe you guys believe you have our best interest at heart. Please realize that we are adults, but we by no means know it all.

To the practicing O.D.'s:

I guess what this rant is getting at is that we still value your advice and opinions. After all, you have the experience and expertise. I've been in this business long enough to know what I don't know. I will still ask your advice on certain matters. All I'm asking is that we try to be a bit more supportive. After all, you may be taking one of us on as an associate someday. You may end up selling your practice to one of us someday. You may even be a preceptor to some of us on rotations. We all know this is a small industry.

CAN"T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG???

 

[EyEnStein 07]

Agreed, some people might be better suited to taking tests than to performing well in the classroom. A few things, though:

1. A college of optometry would care how well an applicant is likely to do in the classroom, because a classroom is exactly what the college will be offering.

2. An exam that went bad did so once -- maybe it was a fluke. If you've consistently done poorly in school, there might be cause for worry.

3. Not every class is based on the ability to memorize a bunch of stuff two days before a test, then spit it out properly; in many, you have to show you're understanding material as it's being taught and are digesting it thoughtfully. Knowing how to answer test questions doesn't mean you'll remember half your answers the day after the exam; it just means you're good at preparing for those critical ~four hours.

I agree with you many things can lend to a poor G.P.A., and they aren't all indicators of (in)ability. Anomalies should be addressed during the interview, if a candidate is given one. Of course no one will disagree, there's no such thing as a perfect system of admission; hell, even after all my talk, I don't know I have firm conviction of what would make the best one.

Yeah your points are good, however i think that if a person has say a good "pre-req" GPA, lets say 3.5 or 3.6, but they have a computer science, engineering major or something (im just saying the arguably more difficult majors) and their "major GPA" is bringing them down, i think that should be viewed in a certain way. Since those classes have not as much to do with Optometry school than the Pre-reqs. I mean not everyone is going to major in Bio or a science, i know i didnt join the 7year pre-opt program with suny because they wanted me to major in Bio!

 

[Commando303]

Yeah your points are good, however i think that if a person has say a good "pre-req" GPA, lets say 3.5 or 3.6, but they have a computer science, engineering major or something (im just saying the arguably more difficult majors) and their "major GPA" is bringing them down, i think that should be viewed in a certain way. Since those classes have not as much to do with Optometry school than the Pre-reqs. I mean not everyone is going to major in Bio or a science, i know i didnt join the 7year pre-opt program with suny because they wanted me to major in Bio!

Of course. I'm sure an admissions committee would care how an applicant has performed in non-science classes (they must seek "well-rounded" candidates), but it certainly would weigh more strongly his or her ability in the sciences.

 

[KHE]

Here's the problem:

I'm not 100% sure about today's entering class of optometry students but I can't imagine that it is that much different than mine 15 years ago. When I entered, virtually every single student in my class dreamed of one day owning and/or working in a fine private practice. I don't know of a single solitary student who sat in class fantasizing about working evenings at Walmart or Sundays at the mall. But fast forward a few years and that's exactly what happens to most people.

For the vast majority of graduates, that dream of practice ownership ain't going to happen or if it does, it's going to take a whole hell of a lot longer to get there than any of you realize.

Most optometry students sort of think to themselves "Oh no. Not me. I'm not going to work for Walmart/Lenscrafters/Pearle/Target/Costco (whatever.) I'm going to "sacrifice" and "work hard" and I'll be just fine."

I would submit that that is no where near enough. There are all kinds of issues with this business that the majority of students are not aware of that go beyond commercial practice and oversupply though commercial practice and oversupply are a large part of the problem and the new schools are going to exacerbate it. Students aren't aware of that and what they don't see is that the new schools are going to directly impact their ability to have the career that they likely are dreaming about for themselves.

I agree some of the practicing ODs on here are a bit too heavy handed in their criticisms of the profession and of pre-opt students in general. But they are speaking out of frustration because they see the same attitudes and mindsets in you all that WE all had when we were in school. For that, you can't really be faulted because how could most of you possibly know any different? Shadowing and talking to ODs isn't going to be enough to get a true understanding of what you're going to be up against.

If you have years in this industry, then you will at least have SOME frame of reference for these problems but most traditional optometric students who come to optometry school right out of college or within a few years of graduating college are not.

I can understand the dislike for the new schools.
Let's face it... they won't put a freeze on putting out new grads just to appease the practicing O.D.'s (though I think they should the second after I graduate! )

Isn't this supposed to be a somewhat supportive forum? I know ODwire is out there, with some docs trying to beat the notion of going into optometry out of our heads. I know that some O.D.'s out there would encourage dentistry or pharmacy rather than let a pre-opt shadow. I suppose they have their reasons (many would say financial-self preservation).

Like it or not, we'll be out there. If we play our cards right, we'll practice in areas that can accommodate us. Not all of us will end up as corporate shills.

I am not trying to start a flame war, but I felt I had to speak up because I can't stand all the negativity going on on either board. We aren't out to dilute the earning potential. We aren't out to step on your toes. Give us a little more credit than that.

To the practicing O.D.'s:

I guess what this rant is getting at is that we still value your advice and opinions. After all, you have the experience and expertise. I've been in this business long enough to know what I don't know. I will still ask your advice on certain matters. All I'm asking is that we try to be a bit more supportive. After all, you may be taking one of us on as an associate someday. You may end up selling your practice to one of us someday. You may even be a preceptor to some of us on rotations. We all know this is a small industry.

CAN"T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG???

 

[Commando303]

Most optometry students sort of think to themselves "Oh no. Not me. I'm not going to work for Walmart/Lenscrafters/Pearle/Target/Costco (whatever.) I'm going to "sacrifice" and "work hard" and I'll be just fine."

No, I don't think you're onto anything, there. I don't know how we can back this up with math -- it's the sort of discussion that lends itself to anecdotal evidence -- but I believe a great number of entering optometry students are very practical and realistic, and fully understand they'll be working under someone's thumb for a number of years before being able to build their own business (which, I agree, most still aspire to do [eventually].)

 

[KHE]

No, I don't think you're onto anything, there. I don't know how we can back this up with math -- it's the sort of discussion that lends itself to anecdotal evidence -- but I believe a great number of entering optometry students are very practical and realistic, and fully understand they'll be working under someone's thumb for a number of years before being able to build their own business (which, I agree, most still aspire to do [eventually].)

But that's the whole point!

Wouldn't it be nice to NOT have to work under someone's thumb for a "number of years" before being able to purchase or start a practice on your own?

That's what people don't seem to be getting. Continued oversupply, exacerbated by 3 new schools is going to mean that you are going to be working under someone else's thumb for LESS MONEY and for a LONGER PERIOD OF TIME than you think.

 

[ibalz]

But that's the whole point!

Wouldn't it be nice to NOT have to work under someone's thumb for a "number of years" before being able to purchase or start a practice on your own?

That's what people don't seem to be getting. Continued oversupply, exacerbated by 3 new schools is going to mean that you are going to be working under someone else's thumb for LESS MONEY and for a LONGER PERIOD OF TIME than you think.

Agreed. But that's the way it's been for at least the last 15 years (speaking from experience at one practice I managed for years). Senior doc took on Jr. doc recent grad as an associate for X number of years (under thumb), which evolved (through contract negotiations) into senior-jr. partnership, which evolved (again through sales agreement negotiations) into transfer of ownership with senior doc staying on through transition for a limited time and sr. doc's eventual retirement, and jr. doc becoming only doc/owner.

True, it may have been much simpler to start from scratch years ago, but that hasn't been the case for years. From what I've gleaned from other docs that I've worked with over the last 20+ years, and from personal experience, the above has become the norm.

I agree that the new schools will add to the problem, but isn't the underlying problem the outrageous cost of an optometry education? The schools' stated budgets ( at the schools I applied to) ranged from $40-$50k per annum. These new grads come out carrying a debt load from $150-200k that takes 25-30 years to pay off! How can we even think of starting a practice from scratch (at a buildout cost of over $100/sf) when many new grads are that deep in debt? That doesn't even consider starting a new family, buying a home or other financial obligations that life presents.

I know that many of us are in for a wake up call. We will learn about how difficult it is. The most important thing is that we will adapt!

This is an ever changing field. We'll adjust to whatever conditions we're faced with, just as you practicing docs have had to do when you guys were newbies. There will be those that will be content as an employee. The standouts always have been, are, and will be the entrepreneurs.

To the docs:
Instead of giving us the "when I was a new grad..." stories and lamenting how different it has become, try to become part of the solution. Encourage us. Like I said in previous posts, it's a small profession. Lots of you will end up working with us. Eventually, some of you will end up working for us.

To my fellow pre-opts:
Let's try not to be contrary to the docs on the forums. The overwhelming majority are here to help us, guide us, and advise us (for free, I might add). They are the experts and they have much more experience than we do.

There are some grumpy selfish docs out there, and they like to stir the pot. Don't fall for their nonsense. Hey if we want to change things, we have to get involved. Join your student AOA chapter, and then AOA after graduation. Power comes with numbers.

 

[IndianaOD]

I think many pre-opts and OD students think that many of us ODs critical of the profession and new OD schools are just acting "protectionist". I can assure you that is not the case.

I already work in one of the most saturated areas of the country. The Midwest. I am surrounded by 4 optometry schools: ICO, IU, Ferris (MI), and OSU. So the new schools are going to have much less effect on me than the ODs out west.

They will have an effect though. They will increase the spread of commercial optometry and continue the trend of more patients for less money. They will lower the perceived quality of OD students with a downward pressure on GPAs.

You guys and gals don't know now but unfortunately Optometry is quickly becoming every man for himself. ODs will downright stab each other in the back to make a buck or keep a patient.

I thought I knew all there was to know about optometry and I was caught off guard after I graduated. I grew up in a smaller town with no commercial optometry.

I graduated #1 in my Pre-Med undergrad class so I am assuming I wasn't dense to the realities.

I just want you all to know that:
-Private practice jobs are hard to find
-commercial gigs are not good for optometry
-Vision Plans are not paying more to keep up with inflation, they are actually getting worse. (some ODs accept exam fees of around $35, less than a hair cut for many!) Dentists around here charge $220-$300 for an exam

All the above are worsened by new schools. If some of you do not believe in oversupply see how quickly you can get a routine eye exam in a given town vs a PCP appointment.

 

[ibalz]

I think many pre-opts and OD students think that many of us ODs critical of the profession and new OD schools are just acting "protectionist". I can assure you that is not the case.

I already work in one of the most saturated areas of the country. The Midwest. I am surrounded by 4 optometry schools: ICO, IU, Ferris (MI), and OSU. So the new schools are going to have much less effect on me than the ODs out west.

They will have an effect though. They will increase the spread of commercial optometry and continue the trend of more patients for less money. They will lower the perceived quality of OD students with a downward pressure on GPAs.

You guys and gals don't know now but unfortunately Optometry is quickly becoming every man for himself. ODs will downright stab each other in the back to make a buck or keep a patient.

I thought I knew all there was to know about optometry and I was caught off guard after I graduated. I grew up in a smaller town with no commercial optometry.

I graduated #1 in my Pre-Med undergrad class so I am assuming I wasn't dense to the realities.

I just want you all to know that:
-Private practice jobs are hard to find
-commercial gigs are not good for optometry
-Vision Plans are not paying more to keep up with inflation, they are actually getting worse. (some ODs accept exam fees of around $35, less than a hair cut for many!) Dentists around here charge $220-$300 for an exam

All the above are worsened by new schools. If some of you do not believe in oversupply see how quickly you can get a routine eye exam in a given town vs a PCP appointment.

I agree for the most part. It seems that your arguments presuppose a number of things.

So what you're essentially saying is that we as professionals are unable to adapt to the new "reality". There will be no possibility for change in the field. There is no way to write your own ticket as an entrepreneurial professional.

I have also completed my post bac. program in the top 1%. As stated previously, I have been a business person in this field. As such, I am well aware of the issues I will face post grad.

However, I don't dwell on the negatives, though they cannot be ignored.

Oh, and coming from NYC originally, optometry there has been every (wo)man for (her)himself for as long as I can remember.

As far as the "downward pressure on GPA's" argument is concerned, wasn't this argument used when NOVA opened? As much as I disagree with the opening of the new schools, we'll see a steady increase in those GPA's over time. The curve is always sharper when the period is short. It always smooths out as the period increases. To illustrate: check out Microsoft's stock price curve for year x. Then look at the curve for a 10 year period that includes year x. The differences are big, no?


BTW, how do you know that the dentist, pharmacist, PCP, specialist, podiatrist (insert professional here) didn't graduate dead last in their class?

Perceived quality issues:
Do you think that patients will pick which OD/dentist/pharmacist/MD/DO they will see based on the school that they graduated from, or rather whether or not they are on their insurance/vision/dental/prescription plan and how close they are to their home or work? Something to think about there


That diploma hanging in their exam room lists no class rank or GPA.

Getting an appointment at an OD vs. PCP:

Last time I checked, the OD's scope of practice was limited to the visual system and associated structures.

PCP's, generally internists & family practitioners, see patients having issues with ALL of the body's systems.

I can guarantee (with a grain of salt - no hard #'s) that given a sample of people, the OVERWHELMING majority of patients experiencing a problem will have issues with a body system other than the visual system. A small number will have multiple issues including the visual system, but only a small number.

OF COURSE the PCP will be booked 3 weeks or a month or more out.

I do agree that vision plans pay pitiful amounts in reimbursements.

I just looked at the last EOB from my insurance plan.

Procedure X - Billed for $100 Plan Paid - $30 PT. Portion - $15 Copay
Difference $55 not billable to the member because an In- Network facility was used.

Based on that - Anyone that bills a plan is getting shortchanged.

Do those dentists that charge $220-$300 for an exam getting reimbursed at that rate or are they billing for that amount and getting what the plan's contract allows for?

We newbies will just have to be creative and adapt to the business/economic environment that we'll be in.

 

[IndianaOD]

I agree for the most part. It seems that your arguments presuppose a number of things.

So what you're essentially saying is that we as professionals are unable to adapt to the new "reality". There will be no possibility for change in the field. There is no way to write your own ticket as an entrepreneurial professional.

I have also completed my post bac. program in the top 1%. As stated previously, I have been a business person in this field. As such, I am well aware of the issues I will face post grad.

However, I don't dwell on the negatives, though they cannot be ignored.

Oh, and coming from NYC originally, optometry there has been every (wo)man for (her)himself for as long as I can remember.

As far as the "downward pressure on GPA's" argument is concerned, wasn't this argument used when NOVA opened? As much as I disagree with the opening of the new schools, we'll see a steady increase in those GPA's over time. The curve is always sharper when the period is short. It always smooths out as the period increases. To illustrate: check out Microsoft's stock price curve for year x. Then look at the curve for a 10 year period that includes year x. The differences are big, no?


BTW, how do you know that the dentist, pharmacist, PCP, specialist, podiatrist (insert professional here) didn't graduate dead last in their class?

Perceived quality issues:
Do you think that patients will pick which OD/dentist/pharmacist/MD/DO they will see based on the school that they graduated from, or rather whether or not they are on their insurance/vision/dental/prescription plan and how close they are to their home or work? Something to think about there


That diploma hanging in their exam room lists no class rank or GPA.

Getting an appointment at an OD vs. PCP:

Last time I checked, the OD's scope of practice was limited to the visual system and associated structures.

PCP's, generally internists & family practitioners, see patients having issues with ALL of the body's systems.

I can guarantee (with a grain of salt - no hard #'s) that given a sample of people, the OVERWHELMING majority of patients experiencing a problem will have issues with a body system other than the visual system. A small number will have multiple issues including the visual system, but only a small number.

OF COURSE the PCP will be booked 3 weeks or a month or more out.

I do agree that vision plans pay pitiful amounts in reimbursements.

I just looked at the last EOB from my insurance plan.

Procedure X - Billed for $100 Plan Paid - $30 PT. Portion - $15 Copay
Difference $55 not billable to the member because an In- Network facility was used.

Based on that - Anyone that bills a plan is getting shortchanged.

Do those dentists that charge $220-$300 for an exam getting reimbursed at that rate or are they billing for that amount and getting what the plan's contract allows for?

We newbies will just have to be creative and adapt to the business/economic environment that we'll be in.

The dentist that owns our building charges $300 private pay for a new patient exam. I saw one of his EOB's by accident and the established routine exam paid around $160.

I just saw an ad on TV: "two pairs of glasses and a FREE eye exam for $49" Really? Do you guys see how that lowers the perceived value of ALL eye exams? How does this not shout oversupply and crap ODs who sell out for performing refractions all day so eye express or whatever can sell 2 pairs for $49?

I had a recent yearly exam with my PCP. In the 30 minutes I sat there waiting he saw 4 patients. Those 5 minute exams (99213) reimburse the MDs $60-$80. But hey, an exam and 2 pairs of glasses for $49.

I'm sorry but no doctoral level profession should have to deal with that crap.

 

[ibalz]

The dentist that owns our building charges $300 private pay for a new patient exam. I saw one of his EOB's by accident and the established routine exam paid around $160.

I just saw an ad on TV: "two pairs of glasses and a FREE eye exam for $49" Really? Do you guys see how that lowers the perceived value of ALL eye exams? How does this not shout oversupply and crap ODs who sell out for performing refractions all day so eye express or whatever can sell 2 pairs for $49?

I had a recent yearly exam with my PCP. In the 30 minutes I sat there waiting he saw 4 patients. Those 5 minute exams (99213) reimburse the MDs $60-$80. But hey, an exam and 2 pairs of glasses for $49.

I'm sorry but no doctoral level profession should have to deal with that crap.

You are absolutely correct. That needs to change, but for now the schools are here to stay. I only wish there were 10 or 12 schools. That won't happen though. We need to figure out how to change it for us... that's the challenge, given the current circumstances.

Anecdotally, I worked for a doc who only catered to high end clients, dealing strictly in luxury eyewear. He didn't accept any insurance - only self-pays. He commanded $100 for int. exams, and $125 for soft, non-toric fits (2 follow-ups incl.), and $150 for soft toric and multifocal fits (3 follow-ups incl.) Average eyewear sale $600-$700. I realize that this is a niche, but as far as perception of value, the bottom line says it all.

He's an example of good market segmentation. He chose what demographic he was going to go after in an area pretty well saturated with low-mid range practices. Granted he only saw 7-10 px/day, but that more than covered payroll & expenses.

I also know a doc whose entire practice consisted of 3 exam rooms, a reception desk & a waiting room. No dispensary, no CL's. In addition to his normal patient base (mostly utility workers, factory workers, and city employees with contracts for safety eyewear that was taken care of at a contract lab), he worked with a few college athletics and a dozen high school athletics programs. He lives a very comfortable existence. Yes, another niche, but it works.

It becomes a matter of being able to recognize a specific need in a particular area, then taking advantage of it, and remaining agile enough to adapt to changing conditions. Contingency planning is more important than ever in this business climate. I think that it's incumbent upon the professional to make the critical decisions as to how you do business. You don't have to settle for what's available and undercut the competition until you pay the patient to come in for a routine exam . As long as you pick your practice location carefully. It's possible to come into a traditionally mid-range area, add a higher end practice to the mix, and be successful. I'm not saying that it's as simple as "Build it and they will come", but when you enter an area that lacks a particular level of service, even though the general service exists, it can work for you.

I think that the schools need to beef up on teaching the business end of the profession.

Are there any schools that offer a O.D./MBA programs?

 

[JMU07]

Are there any schools that offer a O.D./MBA programs?

We had a speaker from Christian Brothers University who talked about SCO students getting their MBA from them after two years of classes. I don't remember details but I think during like, second and third year or I guess even after graduation you take night classes. I'd email admissions about this if you have questions, I'm not 100% sure on the facts.

 

[IndianaOD]

You are absolutely correct. That needs to change, but for now the schools are here to stay. I only wish there were 10 or 12 schools. That won't happen though. We need to figure out how to change it for us... that's the challenge, given the current circumstances.

Anecdotally, I worked for a doc who only catered to high end clients, dealing strictly in luxury eyewear. He didn't accept any insurance - only self-pays. He commanded $100 for int. exams, and $125 for soft, non-toric fits (2 follow-ups incl.), and $150 for soft toric and multifocal fits (3 follow-ups incl.) Average eyewear sale $600-$700. I realize that this is a niche, but as far as perception of value, the bottom line says it all.

He's an example of good market segmentation. He chose what demographic he was going to go after in an area pretty well saturated with low-mid range practices. Granted he only saw 7-10 px/day, but that more than covered payroll & expenses.

I also know a doc whose entire practice consisted of 3 exam rooms, a reception desk & a waiting room. No dispensary, no CL's. In addition to his normal patient base (mostly utility workers, factory workers, and city employees with contracts for safety eyewear that was taken care of at a contract lab), he worked with a few college athletics and a dozen high school athletics programs. He lives a very comfortable existence. Yes, another niche, but it works.

It becomes a matter of being able to recognize a specific need in a particular area, then taking advantage of it, and remaining agile enough to adapt to changing conditions. Contingency planning is more important than ever in this business climate. I think that it's incumbent upon the professional to make the critical decisions as to how you do business. You don't have to settle for what's available and undercut the competition until you pay the patient to come in for a routine exam . As long as you pick your practice location carefully. It's possible to come into a traditionally mid-range area, add a higher end practice to the mix, and be successful. I'm not saying that it's as simple as "Build it and they will come", but when you enter an area that lacks a particular level of service, even though the general service exists, it can work for you.

I think that the schools need to beef up on teaching the business end of the profession.

Are there any schools that offer a O.D./MBA programs?

I understand your train of thought, however the high end niche will not work in many areas. Yes it works for certain practices but there isn't an endless supply of these wealthy patients.

I do believe there are some schools that offer a combined MBA but I don't really see that helping an OD that much unless they want an industry gig.

I'm asking you optimistic pre opts and students how you are going to avoid the low ball commercial refraction mills. So many students say they will never work at one but the reality doesn't show it. Even working at one "for awhile" keeps the corporate mills running. They aren't called the golden handcuffs for nothing. Many times that "couple years" turns into 20 as you buy a house, a car, and have family bills.

I think a workforce study would be an outstanding senior project for some OD students.

I wish you guys and gals the best and I really hope things do turn around but I honestly don't see how they could.

 

[KHE]

Agreed. But that's the way it's been for at least the last 15 years (speaking from experience at one practice I managed for years). Senior doc took on Jr. doc recent grad as an associate for X number of years (under thumb), which evolved (through contract negotiations) into senior-jr. partnership, which evolved (again through sales agreement negotiations) into transfer of ownership with senior doc staying on through transition for a limited time and sr. doc's eventual retirement, and jr. doc becoming only doc/owner.

Those types of situations are harder and harder to come by for a variety of reasons the biggest of which are:

1) Seniordocs retirement portfolios being destroyed over the past number of years forcing seniordocs to work longer and longer
2) Juniordocs increasing debtload and declining salaries making it much more difficult for juniordocs to start or buy into a practice.
3) Managed care and third party payors seriously driving down the value of optometric practices below the level that seniors expected to make.

True, it may have been much simpler to start from scratch years ago, but that hasn't been the case for years. From what I've gleaned from other docs that I've worked with over the last 20+ years, and from personal experience, the above has become the norm.

I would respectfully submit that that is not the norm. Most private practices for sale today are tired, old offices with equipment from the 70s which is grossly overvalued and which usually just end up being shuttered and sold off for assets once the seniordoc dies, becomes disabled, or finally just gives up trying to sell their tired old optical shop.

I agree that the new schools will add to the problem, but isn't the underlying problem the outrageous cost of an optometry education? The schools' stated budgets ( at the schools I applied to) ranged from $40-$50k per annum. These new grads come out carrying a debt load from $150-200k that takes 25-30 years to pay off! How can we even think of starting a practice from scratch (at a buildout cost of over $100/sf) when many new grads are that deep in debt? That doesn't even consider starting a new family, buying a home or other financial obligations that life presents.

That's right. So when you couple that with declining reimbursements from third party payors, increased commercialization and declining salaries due to increased oversupply of providers it's only going to get worse.

I know that many of us are in for a wake up call. We will learn about how difficult it is. The most important thing is that we will adapt!

For the vast majority of you, "adaptation" is going to mean working nights and weekends at the mall for whatever they feel like paying you. I wish it weren't true but sadly I feel that that is where the profession is heading. It will become like pharmacy. You will not starve. You will not default on your loans. You will make a good, above average living. But independently owned private practices will become about as common as independently owned pharmacies and most of you will spend your careers toiling for, and making money for large corporations.

To the docs:
Instead of giving us the "when I was a new grad..." stories and lamenting how different it has become, try to become part of the solution. Encourage us. Like I said in previous posts, it's a small profession. Lots of you will end up working with us. Eventually, some of you will end up working for us.

The best advice I can give you is this: I would encourage you to think hard about the obstacles facing you if you wish to own your own practice. Talk to as many private practitioners are you can and ask them as many questions as you can. The biggest question I would ask them is this:

"What is the negative stuff about optometry and practice ownership that you DID NOT REALIZE before you went into it?"

 

[KHE]

Anecdotally, I worked for a doc who only catered to high end clients, dealing strictly in luxury eyewear. He didn't accept any insurance - only self-pays. He commanded $100 for int. exams, and $125 for soft, non-toric fits (2 follow-ups incl.), and $150 for soft toric and multifocal fits (3 follow-ups incl.) Average eyewear sale $600-$700. I realize that this is a niche, but as far as perception of value, the bottom line says it all.

What does he charge for visual field testing? Fundus photography? Gonioscopy? Foreign body removals?

To me, what you've just described is nothing more than a high end optical shop with a doc in the box. I would respectfully submit that if that is your goal, there is no need for 4 years of college, and 4 years of professional school. Just go to opticianry college for two years out of school and open your high end shop.

 

[ibalz]

My short answer:

Well, I'm in a unique situation, as I have the luxury of being married to a professional, so I can say 100% that I wouldn't step foot into, much less work a corporate gig.

Maybe the MBA isn't for everyone, but I firmly believe that it will hone the skills of the entrepreneurial OD. (Not everyone is a natural in business) My B.S. happens to be in business administration and I find it invaluable - in ANY setting, not just corporate. Keep in mind, most MBA programs offer "subspecialties" including finance, accounting, marketing, advertising, and small business entrepreneurship. I've heard of a few business schools offering specialized MBA's for professional practices.

As I stated before, it is up to the OD to write his/her own ticket. True, the current climate makes that more difficult, but they'll do it. This profession is not in trouble. It is what you make it for yourself. Plain & Simple.

 

[ibalz]

What does he charge for visual field testing? Fundus photography? Gonioscopy? Foreign body removals?

To me, what you've just described is nothing more than a high end optical shop with a doc in the box. I would respectfully submit that if that is your goal, there is no need for 4 years of college, and 4 years of professional school. Just go to opticianry college for two years out of school and open your high end shop.

Whoa, slow down there buckaroo!!

Context, context, context!

He doesn't charge for any of those procedures because he chose not to perform them. His thing was "when in doubt, refer out", and he did - a lot.
I was merely relaying a specific successful operation to Indianadoc. That was in no way commentary on my specific goals. Yes, a doc in the box, but close to a 7-figure-after-expenses-laughing-all-the-way-to-the-bank-at-age-45-doc-in-the-box!!!

BTW - don't knock opticians
1- Having been an optician, I take offense to that. (I realize none was intended)
2- Been there done that - (as a partner - sold to partner to return to school)

I'm not saying that everyone can or will achieve success in the same way. My point was that the two anecdotes were examples of independents that are quite successful because they - and here's business 101 - addressed a need in a particular area that was not being met.