Why is optometry school 4 years long?

This forum made possible through the generous support of
SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

SnozzBerry

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
147
Reaction score
129
So this may come off as troll-like or inflammatory, but please excuse my ignorance.

I just met a first year optometry student and talked a little about their schooling. Why on earth does it take 4 years to learn optometry? Techs can refract, OMDs do the surgery, GED grads can help patients try on glasses... what do you guys do that takes you so long to learn? 4 years is a LONG time!

I am in dental school... it takes us 4 years to learn every procedure (root canals, fillings, extractions, cleanings, dentures, partial dentures, space maintenance... the list goes on) along with the necessary hand skills, prescribe medications appropriately (pain meds, antibiotics, benzos, etc.), and provide emergency dental services. But you guys don't do surgical procedures (in most states), you don't prescribe much (contacts don't count), OMDs take care of most emergencies. Most of your job can be done by either OMDs or techs... so whats up with the 4 years of schooling?

That sounds rather mean, and I'm hoping you prove me wrong! Sorry if I offended everyone, this is a hard question to word without sounding like a jerk.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Lol good question. I'm gonna reply just so I can get notifications for the responses. I am interested in knowing as well

(pre-optometry student)
 
This is actually very good question. Ive always asked myself the same question but I believe at the end of the day it is about money. Often times in life we people do things without questioning it because everyone else does it and/or it just seems normal. 200-300k of debt for some students. At the end of the day most optometrist refract all day long and will write referrals for the complicated/surgical patients to the OMD. Yes there are some that may treat pathologies but I think it would still make sense to make the curriculum 3 years and maybe some sort of fellowship/residency for those that want to go deeper into pathologies. This is only my opinion so I may be wrong...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
So this may come off as troll-like or inflammatory, but please excuse my ignorance.

I just met a first year optometry student and talked a little about their schooling. Why on earth does it take 4 years to learn optometry? Techs can refract, OMDs do the surgery, GED grads can help patients try on glasses... what do you guys do that takes you so long to learn? 4 years is a LONG time!

I am in dental school... it takes us 4 years to learn every procedure (root canals, fillings, extractions, cleanings, dentures, partial dentures, space maintenance... the list goes on) along with the necessary hand skills, prescribe medications appropriately (pain meds, antibiotics, benzos, etc.), and provide emergency dental services. But you guys don't do surgical procedures (in most states), you don't prescribe much (contacts don't count), OMDs take care of most emergencies. Most of your job can be done by either OMDs or techs... so whats up with the 4 years of schooling?

That sounds rather mean, and I'm hoping you prove me wrong! Sorry if I offended everyone, this is a hard question to word without sounding like a jerk.

As someone who's gone through the schooling, you're right, there's really no need for 4 years.

1st year= rehashing pre-reqs that most of us have already taken.
4th year= an entire year of clinical rotations.

2.5 years would be more appropriate
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Merry Christmas,

If you ask a toy factory tech how to make a ball, he'll say he presses the green button on the console and a ball rolls out of the conveyor belt in 2 minutes. If you ask the engineer or manager, they'll probably know exactly what the inputs, outputs, and mechanism of what goes into toy production as well as how to troubleshoot anything going wrong with the system.

You would expect a primary eye care professional to understand how the eyeball works so that you have some idea for the underlying reasons when problems occur:

Anatomy and physiology , and circulatory and neurological pathways of the eye. How vision/perception occurs. How the eye/visual system develops with age so you know age-related normative data to consider what is normal or abnormal testing. One would argue that it is important to have this as a background (and more importantly what is clinically relevant) rather than having no concept of it at all. This alone is a mountain of information.

Because we do have prescribing privileges for oral and topical, law mandates we know drug interaction, drug mechanism, current therapeutic management from evidence based medicine, pharmacology. Familiarity of other systemic drugs needs to be known to understand any possible ocular toxicity or understand the systemic health of a patient (mostly hypertension, diabetes). Because optometrists are primary eye care professionals with a health component required to constitute an eye exam, it would make sense that understanding what is going on in the overall health of the patient is important. For that matter, optometrists can also order blood work based on their findings or suspicions and need to be familiar with what's normal and abnormal and related to what they are suspicious for. Optometrists are more often than not (especially when lower income classes refuse to see their pcp) the first professional to diagnose something going wrong systemically [whether uncontrolled diabetes, malignant hypertension, or even a referral to be checked out for colon cancer which has increased to be positive based on retinal presentation]. Optometrists do save lives occasionally along with other health care professionals, and to do that, you need understanding of what is going on.

It would also make sense if we have prescribing privileges that we understand the nature of ocular diseases and even systemic diseases. That in itself is a huge as you would know. Incidence/signs/symptoms/treatment/risk factors/mechanism. If there is a central corneal ulcer, standard of care is that it must be cultured and the pathogen identified, so some understanding of what eye-bugs are out there and microbiology is needed and what meds work for it. While this can and should be sent to a OMD immediately, especially based on state laws, again sometimes you are the first responder (especially in rural areas of the country) and you may have an obligation to get the ball rolling as a corneal melt can occur within tens of hours.

Sure 95% of cases in a normal eye exam are straightforward refractive error and normal binocularity and ocular health, but when things go wrong you need to be able to help them. How do you prescribe for the pediatric patient with one good eye and one bad eye? How do you prescribe for the pediatric patient with an eye turn? How do you prescribe for the adult patient with an eye turn? How do you prescribe for the adult patient with an eye turn that is new in 2 months? He still has a job and life where he needs to see and now some unknown cause of an eye turn that you must refer to the proper professional? Send that to an OMD and you just wasted the OMD's time as he sends it to the neurologist for imaging. Do you even prescribe prism or do you consider vision therapy? How do you perform vision therapy? If you prescribe prism, are you prescribing for someone with normal correspondence or abnormal correspoondence? If you are prescribing for someone with normal correspondence how do you know how much relieving prism they need? Did you even think to consider measuring fixation disparity?

What if your patient is legally blind but wants to be a productive member of society and still read and interact with what limited vision they have left? What role do you have in helping them or managing their cause of legal blindness.

How do you even figure out what to prescribe or detect what's going on? You need to learn how to do and become proficient at these skills.

To conclude: A tech can run tests and get outputs, and while they may or may not know how it fits in the big picture of the case, by law a licensed doctor needs to have interpreted the results and run the case. An OMD is a surgeon, and unless it is moderate/severe primary glaucoma or any secondary glaucoma, if they can't cut it, sew it, or inject into it, they generally don't want to see it because it is a waste of their time. They'll just refer it to the OD who should have the expertise and responsibility REQUIRED in their license to manage the condition. And that expertise does involve a lot of education. Refraction can be learned in 10 hours. Everything else I mentioned takes a ton of patience to LEARN. And it is learned in 3 years of time, as the 4th year is just clinical rotation.

As a side note: even though the pre-req "rehashing" part of curriculum is in one part intended to get everyone in the class up to speed on the same page, it should weave in relevant information related to the eye. Such as understanding the biochemistry of aqueous production (salts, gradients, protein channels, etc) that by the time you get to glaucoma, you already repeated that information at least three other times in ocular anatomy and ocular physiology. And that repetition is usually a good thing to reinforce what is important and things that you need to know for clinic and boards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 24 users
Interesting responses so far. One practical answer from a practicing optometrist, and one romanticized answer from an OD resident. Suppose that makes sense lol.
 
I'm not a resident. Also by definition of romanticized you're calling my post an unrealistic description. That's rough.
 
I'm not a resident. Also by definition of romanticized you're calling my post an unrealistic description. That's rough.
Apologies, where are you in your training? And I don't think that's unrealistic, just seems like you emphasized the 5% of optometry that could still be learned in less than 4 years. But I don't really know anything, and appreciate your response!
 
If you ask a toy factory tech how to make a ball, he'll say he presses the

You would expect a primary eye care professional to understand how the eyeball works so that you have some idea for the underlying reasons when problems occur:

Anatomy and physiology , and circulatory and neurological pathways of the eye. How vision/perception occurs.

Because we do have prescribing privileges for oral and topical, law mandates we know drug interaction, drug mechanism,

It would also make sense if we have prescribing privileges that we understand the nature of ocular diseases and even systemic diseases.

To conclude: A tech can run tests and get outputs, and while they may or may not know how it fits in the big picture of the case, by law a licensed doctor needs to have interpreted the results and run the case. An OMD is a surgeon, and unless it is moderate/seve

I'll take a stab. I'll first start by saying that this post is completely wrong. That said, chances are, NO ONE in this forum has the perspective to correctly answer the question. Asking WHY optometry is 4 years long is different than asking, what do you guys learn in those 4 years? (which can constitute the rational for the above reply, but it doesn't answer the question that was asked).

The decision to make optometry a 4 year program probably occurred some 75-100 years ago when the first optometry school to go into a 4 year program decided to make their curriculum 4 years long. It was probably some "advanced" opticianry program at the start. There were probably several unregulated opticianry programs all kinda doing their thing, when one school decided to make their degree 4 years long (whereas the other programs were less - I can't imagine the FIRST opticianry/optometry program in existence STARTED as a 4 year program since the predecessor to optometry was some form of jewellers/glasses-guy apprenticeship). Anyhoos - at some point, some guy in charge of one of the schools decided to make it a 4 year (probably Bachelor's) degree. University degrees were 4 years long, and the idea was to probably just make it equivalent so people could graduate from "optometry" (or whatever it was called) with a recognized secondary-school qualification. Eventually, all the other schools decided it was a good idea - so they joined in. Evidently, there was never a successful attempt to reduce it from 4 to fewer years, and hence, it remains 4 years long. That's probably why optometry is 4 years long - cause at some point in the past, someone decided it would be a degree program and degrees generally took 4 years to complete.

This isn't intended to be a historically precise answer but the gist is probably correct. Now, if you're saying SHOULD optometry be a 4 year program, that's a different question entirely.
 
I'll take a stab. I'll first start by saying that this post is completely wrong. That said, chances are, NO ONE in this forum has the perspective to correctly answer the question. Asking WHY optometry is 4 years long is different than asking, what do you guys learn in those 4 years? (which can constitute the rational for the above reply, but it doesn't answer the question that was asked).

The decision to make optometry a 4 year program probably occurred some 75-100 years ago when the first optometry school to go into a 4 year program decided to make their curriculum 4 years long. It was probably some "advanced" opticianry program at the start. There were probably several unregulated opticianry programs all kinda doing their thing, when one school decided to make their degree 4 years long (whereas the other programs were less - I can't imagine the FIRST opticianry/optometry program in existence STARTED as a 4 year program since the predecessor to optometry was some form of jewellers/glasses-guy apprenticeship). Anyhoos - at some point, some guy in charge of one of the schools decided to make it a 4 year (probably Bachelor's) degree. University degrees were 4 years long, and the idea was to probably just make it equivalent so people could graduate from "optometry" (or whatever it was called) with a recognized secondary-school qualification. Eventually, all the other schools decided it was a good idea - so they joined in. Evidently, there was never a successful attempt to reduce it from 4 to fewer years, and hence, it remains 4 years long. That's probably why optometry is 4 years long - cause at some point in the past, someone decided it would be a degree program and degrees generally took 4 years to complete.

This isn't intended to be a historically precise answer but the gist is probably correct. Now, if you're saying SHOULD optometry be a 4 year program, that's a different question entirely.
What was wrong with the post? And I'll bite, SHOULD optometry be a 4 year program?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'll take a stab. I'll first start by saying that this post is completely wrong. That said, chances are, NO ONE in this forum has the perspective to correctly answer the question. Asking WHY optometry is 4 years long is different than asking, what do you guys learn in those 4 years? (which can constitute the rational for the above reply, but it doesn't answer the question that was asked).

The decision to make optometry a 4 year program probably occurred some 75-100 years ago when the first optometry school to go into a 4 year program decided to make their curriculum 4 years long. It was probably some "advanced" opticianry program at the start. There were probably several unregulated opticianry programs all kinda doing their thing, when one school decided to make their degree 4 years long (whereas the other programs were less - I can't imagine the FIRST opticianry/optometry program in existence STARTED as a 4 year program since the predecessor to optometry was some form of jewellers/glasses-guy apprenticeship). Anyhoos - at some point, some guy in charge of one of the schools decided to make it a 4 year (probably Bachelor's) degree. University degrees were 4 years long, and the idea was to probably just make it equivalent so people could graduate from "optometry" (or whatever it was called) with a recognized secondary-school qualification. Eventually, all the other schools decided it was a good idea - so they joined in. Evidently, there was never a successful attempt to reduce it from 4 to fewer years, and hence, it remains 4 years long. That's probably why optometry is 4 years long - cause at some point in the past, someone decided it would be a degree program and degrees generally took 4 years to complete.

This isn't intended to be a historically precise answer but the gist is probably correct. Now, if you're saying SHOULD optometry be a 4 year program, that's a different question entirely.
BURN!
 
What was wrong with the post? And I'll bite, SHOULD optometry be a 4 year program?

In one sentence, the following (which is me adding precision to the last sentence in the paragraph I wrote): That's probably why optometry is 4 years long - cause at some point in the past, someone decided it would be a bachelor-level degree program and bachelor degrees, in order to be recognized as legitimate (this is a quasi-legal "requirement") traditionally have to be 4 years in duration.

My opinion about optometry being 4 years can be extended to many other degrees that happen to be 4 years long (why is dentistry 4 years long? Probably the same reason - because it was made into a degree program and traditionally, a degree constitutes 4 years of study).

In my opinion, optometry could easily be a 3 year program.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
What was wrong with the post? And I'll bite, SHOULD optometry be a 4 year program?

For instance, the guy wrote "Because we do have prescribing privileges for oral and topical, law mandates we know drug interaction, drug mechanism,"

Prescribing privileges? Drug interactions? The first optometry program started as a four year degree probably about a hundred years ago. It was basically refracting opticianry. Hell no it wasn't a "medical" curriculum (you think medicine would've allowed that?). Most of the medical stuff was acquired in the last 25-30 years ago. Optometry was 4 years long way before all of this. So no, his post is completely anachronistic.
 
I'm an OD FAAO. I'm not sure why we are discussing history. I just shared what goes on in a curriculum, and I would imagine it would take 2-3 years to be able to become proficient with it and clinical skills, while also maintaining an outside school life as to not burn someone out. The curriculum is only 3 years long at optometry schools with one year of rotations. Some schools have 2.5 years of curriculum and 1.5 years of rotations. And I think the curriculum mostly justifies what an optometrist should minimally know based on the current scope of practice. I would argue in my schooling, maybe <5-10% of the curriculum I went through I thought was truly not necessarily transferable to clinical practice, rather being more appropriate for academia/research . But why not teach it because there will be optometrists who go into academia/research.

Just my perspective and philosophy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
I'm an OD FAAO. I'm not sure why we are discussing history. I just shared what goes on in a curriculum, and I would imagine it would take 2-3 years to be able to become proficient with it and clinical skills, while also maintaining an outside school life as to not burn someone out. The curriculum is only 3 years long at optometry schools with one year of rotations. Some schools have 2.5 years of curriculum and 1.5 years of rotations. And I think the curriculum mostly justifies what an optometrist should minimally know based on the current scope of practice. I would argue in my schooling, maybe <5-10% of the curriculum I went through I thought was truly not necessarily transferable to clinical practice, rather being more appropriate for academia/research . But why not teach it because there will be optometrists who go into academia/research.

Just my perspective and philosophy.

Umm. If the purpose of you sharing that you are FAAO is to demonstrate competence/intelligence, then it should be obvious to you why we are discussing history. It answers the OP's question. Vet, Pharm, Dents, Meds, Chiro, Bachelor (but not "post-graduate" degrees!) etc. are ALL 4 years long. Do you think all these professions just happen to "require" 4 years for their degrees and it's just once big coincidence? I have a better explanation for you. 4 years is fulfilling some outward political directive regarding educational standards for post-secondary education (which is how all these programs started, or remain). So that's why optometry is 4 years long. Do you still not get this? There are places/jurisdictions in the world where optometry has virtually none of the scope of that of the US, and their optometry programs are 4 years long as well. So you can't say it's curriculum-directed. Heck. 50 years ago, the curriculum in the US wasn't nearly what it is now, and yet 50 years ago optometry was 4 years long. If its length was curriculum-directed as you seem to suggest, then wouldn't optometry, which was 4 years long 50 years ago WITHOUT TPAs, would now be GREATER than 4 years long, WITH TPAs?

And as an aside, I'm an optom "Fellow" of some sort too, and in all likelihood, have credentials you don't hold a candle to.
 
Optometry school is 4 years long because it is a professional program awarding the degree Doctor of Optometry to all students who successfully pass all their courses, national boards and state board exams. Just like medicine, dentistry, podiatry, veterinary medicine, optometry is a professional program that requires understanding of basic science and clinical science. The first three years are academic along with clinic. The fourth and final year is all clinical rotations. Optometry has made significant strides in expanding scope of practice thru legislative means during the past decades. Optometry is a wonderful profession where we make a difference in people's life by safeguarding people's vision. On a different note, my personal issue is: why many optometry schools opened up these past years graduating so many optometrist which has led to saturation ? tuition is outrageous for the 4 year program where your return on your investment is simply not there in 2015 going forward ? Owing over 200K in debt, you are in big trouble. I would like to hear from any AOA members or leaders as to why they cannot stop these new schools opening up ? I posted about 22 OD schools opening up and why the AOA cannot stop this . Not one answer/ reply from anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I kind of wonder what old optometrists did in school. Were they well versed in leaf rooms and horopters and that kind of thing? Was The Bates Method ever in the curriculum? Was it just really really easy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
LOL. Good question. I'm guessing it most certainly wouldn't have been as rigorous as now. Optom was 4 years before things like:

- the discovery of penicillin/antibiotics
- Watson and Crick publishing their work on DNA

In other words, before the advent of modern medicine. Within eye care, it was before things like knowledge that patching was a treatment for amblyopia.

To add to your idea further, most of the early schools also didn't even start out with a "clinic", so they actually had 4 full years of didactic learning i.e. there was no "clinical" experience to speak of. Optometry was entirely book/lab based learning. Which if you think of it, really makes you wonder what their curriculum was made up of.
 
Umm. If the purpose of you sharing that you are FAAO is to demonstrate competence/intelligence, then it should be obvious to you why we are discussing history. It answers the OP's question. Vet, Pharm, Dents, Meds, Chiro, Bachelor (but not "post-graduate" degrees!) etc. are ALL 4 years long. Do you think all these professions just happen to "require" 4 years for their degrees and it's just once big coincidence? I have a better explanation for you. 4 years is fulfilling some outward political directive regarding educational standards for post-secondary education (which is how all these programs started, or remain). So that's why optometry is 4 years long. Do you still not get this? There are places/jurisdictions in the world where optometry has virtually none of the scope of that of the US, and their optometry programs are 4 years long as well. So you can't say it's curriculum-directed. Heck. 50 years ago, the curriculum in the US wasn't nearly what it is now, and yet 50 years ago optometry was 4 years long. If its length was curriculum-directed as you seem to suggest, then wouldn't optometry, which was 4 years long 50 years ago WITHOUT TPAs, would now be GREATER than 4 years long, WITH TPAs?

And as an aside, I'm an optom "Fellow" of some sort too, and in all likelihood, have credentials you don't hold a candle to.

Can you please clarify what fellowship you're referring to? And please don't say American Board of Optometry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
correction: you also spend half of each semester of dental school learning the fine arts of treating each mouth like a goldmine and scheduling new patients with good fillings to have them removed and redone for the $$$. :hardy:
So this may come off as troll-like or inflammatory, but please excuse my ignorance.

I just met a first year optometry student and talked a little about their schooling. Why on earth does it take 4 years to learn optometry? Techs can refract, OMDs do the surgery, GED grads can help patients try on glasses... what do you guys do that takes you so long to learn? 4 years is a LONG time!

I am in dental school... it takes us 4 years to learn every procedure (root canals, fillings, extractions, cleanings, dentures, partial dentures, space maintenance... the list goes on) along with the necessary hand skills, prescribe medications appropriately (pain meds, antibiotics, benzos, etc.), and provide emergency dental services. But you guys don't do surgical procedures (in most states), you don't prescribe much (contacts don't count), OMDs take care of most emergencies. Most of your job can be done by either OMDs or techs... so whats up with the 4 years of schooling?

That sounds rather mean, and I'm hoping you prove me wrong! Sorry if I offended everyone, this is a hard question to word without sounding like a jerk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Can you please clarify what fellowship you're referring to? And please don't say American Board of Optometry.
with all due respect Dr. KHE, i heard you graduated with Morgan and gave him the idea for his norms.

all kidding aside, i think someone who is both an OD and an MD is probably one of the very best resources to answer such a question. all you have to do is look at the curriculum of any of the optometry schools to see why the OD degree is a 4 year program. ODs are doctors, not techs. the 4 years (or more for those that do residency afterwards) is to build the knowledge base on which you diagnose patients. what the hell can any program less than 4 years teach someone about vision? ODs deal directly with the brain--vision is more perceptual than an actual "sense"--other professions aren't in direct contact with the brain like ODs. lol is there a diagnostic tooth test dentists do to tell you about a possible cranial nerve palsy? "when i touched tooth 7, it didn't move, therefore, we have a cranial nerve 7 palsy." :D (again, just a joke here, please don't get all worked up.) maybe in a followup post, i'll present the 4 year program of just one school--this post is long enough as it is and i don't think anyone is reading anymore.

at any rate, here is someone who has done both an OD and an MD program separately (source)..

OD vs OMD
RileyD | Jan 5,2013 6:23PM
I'm both an OD and MD. After graduating optometry school, I practiced full scope medical eye care for 3 years. However, I felt that the limits of full surgical eye care limited my capacity to treat my patients and expand my practice. I elected to enroll back into medical school and hired an OD to cover my practice with myself only seeing patients only on Satudays and days off from medical school.

This is what I can share. After 4 years of optometry school, optometrists are way ahead in the knowledge of eye care than after 4 years of medical school. Although an optometric curriculum is dynamic, it is also very specific. In addition to all of the core medical sciences, courses in advanced medical/ophthalmic optics/ ocular biology/ neuroscience and neuro - anatomy gave me a clear cut understanding of the ocular system and disease processes. Topped with courses in ocular disease, glaucoma, pharmacology, binocular vision and retina, countless hours in clinic and externship. I had seen nearly 2600 patients before I graduated OD school! I only ever looked into a handful of eyes during medical school - mostly as a part of my training as an OD. I had amassed a much greater knowledge base in eyes in the first 4 yrs of OD school than the whole 4 years of MD school. That is simply the nature. OD school is very specific/ MD school very broad.

Now, this is where the key difference lies, after OD school, there is an optional one year residency that most ODs defer. This can be in areas of primary eye care, ocular disease, pediatrics etc. After medical school we complete additional required residency, one year in general and 3-4 years in ophthalmology.
It wasn't until my residency that I began to "focus" on eyes and diseases. I saw that a lot of what my fellow residents were doing were self learning and hands on training in eye care. They were often impressed at my knowledge base in eyes/ refraction and technical skill. When one of my colleagues found out that I was an OD first, he commented, "Wow, they really teach you a lot about the eyes in there dont they?'. I replied, "Yes, they do. "

Being on both sides of eye care has given me a perspective that has helped me grow tremendously. Unless they've done it, neither profession knows exactly what one another has gone through to earn the responsibilty to care for the health and vision of another person's eyes. I can say that ODs are trained very well in primary eye care and therapeutics, however their lack of surgical training limits the scope of their practice. Only MDs who have done post graduate residency and training in ocular surgery can perform these procedures safely.

With that said, I've had discussions with fellow ODs and MDs alike who ask... "What if ODs came out of school and enrolled into an ophthalmology residency?" What result would you have? I would like to think that we would have an amazing eye care professional who has an ultimate understanding of ocular health/disease and vision.

All of the health professions have good and bad practitioners. That's just how it is. Not every player in the NFL is a superstar, some are certainly better than other. Don't judge the ECP that you're seeing based on title alone (OD vs MD), but rather on your experience and the level of trust you have in him or her. I've seen patients that had previously seen an OD or another MD and the story is always the same when you hear about why they left. If they don't trust you and you don't educate them on their eye health, they'll go find someone who will. A good doctor will always put your concerns before his, whether he is an OD or an MD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
with all due respect Dr. KHE, i heard you graduated with Morgan and gave him the idea for his norms.

all kidding aside, i think someone who is both an OD and an MD is probably one of the very best resources to answer such a question. all you have to do is look at the curriculum of any of the optometry schools to see why the OD degree is a 4 year program. ODs are doctors, not techs. the 4 years (or more for those that do residency afterwards) is to build the knowledge base on which you diagnose patients. what the hell can any program less than 4 years teach someone about vision? ODs deal directly with the brain--vision is more perceptual than an actual "sense"--other professions aren't in direct contact with the brain like ODs. lol is there a diagnostic tooth test dentists do to tell you about a possible cranial nerve palsy? "when i touched tooth 7, it didn't move, therefore, we have a cranial nerve 7 palsy." :D (again, just a joke here, please don't get all worked up.) maybe in a followup post, i'll present the 4 year program of just one school--this post is long enough as it is and i don't think anyone is reading.
Uhhh.... We know the cranial nerves and test them on our patients if need be. Pretty simple stuff really. I'm seeing a pattern here, optometrists saying the education could definitely be shortened and students trying to justify the 4 years through making things seem more complex than they really are. And yes, some patients' mouths are literally gold mines -- lots of gold crowns ;).
 
this is the key my friend. :rolleyes:
Well you must admit this has been an interesting discussion. And seems like some optometrists agree that 4 years is a little long for what you use in practice.
 
LOL. Good question. I'm guessing it most certainly wouldn't have been as rigorous as now. Optom was 4 years before things like:

- the discovery of penicillin/antibiotics
- Watson and Crick publishing their work on DNA

In other words, before the advent of modern medicine. Within eye care, it was before things like knowledge that patching was a treatment for amblyopia.

To add to your idea further, most of the early schools also didn't even start out with a "clinic", so they actually had 4 full years of didactic learning i.e. there was no "clinical" experience to speak of. Optometry was entirely book/lab based learning. Which if you think of it, really makes you wonder what their curriculum was made up of.
why don't you go find out and report to us what they did in OD school "before the advent of modern medicine" (lol, what is that, like medieval times?). you're not really making any sense. did they take 25+ semester credits in the "early days" ? you're simplifying the entire thing to suit your needs.

the issue isn't about why it was originally 4 years, it's about what do we do now in ~2016 for the 4 years of school. i'm glad it's 4 years. they give you 200% of the info so that you can pass the boards. optometry school is not bare minimum knowledge, it's more than that as opposed to boards of any field, which requires you to have bare minimum knowledge/competency in the field.

here's a sample of what students study for over the course of 4 years, which can "easily be done in just 2.5-3 years" (LOL, nahhh, not really):

http://optometry.nova.edu/od/curriculum.html

what in that list would you like to take out, your highness?

i think personally, learning about the anal triangle doesn't directly apply to vision, i agree.. but starting 2nd semester of 1st year, there's really nothing you can remove.. but i guess you feel better going to an OD with 2.5 years of school vs. one who studied all of that over 4 years. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Uhhh.... We know the cranial nerves and test them on our patients if need be. Pretty simple stuff really. I'm seeing a pattern here, optometrists saying the education could definitely be shortened and students trying to justify the 4 years through making things seem more complex than they really are. And yes, some patients' mouths are literally gold mines -- lots of gold crowns ;).
lol why would i want to pay more tuition as a student? let's put it this way, at this point, i agree with the 4-year timeline. maybe when i get the bill 6 months after graduation, i'll jump ship and think it can be done as a night school in some community college campus free of charge. but for now, you can shove it. :D
 
lol why would i want to pay more tuition as a student? let's put it this way, at this point, i agree with the 4-year timeline. maybe when i get the bill 6 months after graduation, i'll jump ship and think it can be done as a night school in some community college campus free of charge. but for now, you can shove it. :D
But you've never practiced optometry. You don't really know what you need to know and what you don't. It's important to understand that.
 
I don't get this thread.

I am sure that if you asked any practicing doctor in any field, they would say that there is a significant amount of stuff that they learned in school that they "never use" on a daily basis. For me personally, I do not think optometry school can/should be shortened from the current 4 year model. At the same time, I don't think it needs to be expanded or that residency training needs to be made mandatory as you sometimes hear being thrown around.

You could probably make the argument that certain things in training should be emphasized less and other things emphasized more but I think four years is about right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
But you've never practiced optometry. You don't really know what you need to know and what you don't. It's important to understand that.
That's not the point. I don't need to be a practicing optometrist to know that what they teach at schools is way beyond what you'll actually be doing in your average day-to-day job as an OD.. lol this is common sense. Every program is "guilty" of this. The issue is that you're singling out optometry as the only program that teaches students more than what the average OD will see in their careers (i say average because it'll vary slightly depending on what field they go into or what they specialize in). Why is an undergrad degree 4 years long? Why does a mechanical engineer major or an electrical engineer, etc. need to have an X amount of credits of a foreign language, an X amount of general chemistry, etc.? Advisors will say "to be well rounded." It's all standardized BS to keep everyone at the same level so that a graduate from some college in NY or FL or TX or CA with a biology major is expected to have roughly the same understanding of approximately the same topics as his/her peers.

the issue is singling out optometry like it's different in this regard from other programs, which it's not. MD programs, DDS programs, Audiology Programs, etc. all of these essentially are aimed at ensuring their students pass the boards so that they can get their license to practice in their fields after graduation. boards are standardized and they test a list of topics, therefore, programs have to make sure they cover those topics; each program will be unique in what they emphasize, but they'll all cover at least the core boards topics and end up giving you more info than you'll need as your average Joe Shmoe doctor. Today, boards is probably what ultimately dictates the program lengths.. so you can say that you're not going to be using everything you're tested on the boards whether you're an MD in some field, DDS, OD, etc.

and aside from that, asking "why are any of these programs (besides mine and my buddy's) 4 years long?" is a silly question since you're not actually in that field. why is audiology 4 years? "do you really need 4 years to learn about the ear and hearing and all of that?" that's basically what you're asking here, except that your own answer is "no," and you just want to see what "stupid" thoughts others have. you'll get answers ranging from 1-word to a few paragraphs long and in the end, you're going to dismiss what doesn't agree with your idea of what ODs do. you dismiss one response and another and skim over the rest because you're already convinced beforehand. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That's not the point. I don't need to be a practicing optometrist to know that what they teach at schools is way beyond what you'll actually be doing in your average day-to-day job as an OD.. lol this is common sense. Every program is "guilty" of this. The issue is that you're singling out optometry as the only program that teaches students more than what the average OD will see in their careers (i say average because it'll vary slightly depending on what field they go into or what they specialize in). Why is an undergrad degree 4 years long? Why does a mechanical engineer major or an electrical engineer, etc. need to have an X amount of credits of a foreign language, an X amount of general chemistry, etc.? Advisors will say "to be well rounded." It's all standardized BS to keep everyone at the same level so that a graduate from some college in NY or FL or TX or CA with a biology major is expected to have roughly the same understanding of approximately the same topics as his/her peers.

the issue is singling out optometry like it's different in this regard from other programs, which it's not. MD programs, DDS programs, Audiology Programs, etc. all of these essentially are aimed at ensuring their students pass the boards so that they can get their license to practice in their fields after graduation. boards are standardized and they test a list of topics, therefore, programs have to make sure they cover those topics; each program will be unique in what they emphasize, but they'll all cover at least the core boards topics and end up giving you more info than you'll need as your average Joe Shmoe doctor. Today, boards is probably what ultimately dictates the program lengths.. so you can say that you're not going to be using everything you're tested on the boards whether you're an MD in some field, DDS, OD, etc.

and aside from that, asking "why are any of these programs (besides mine and my buddy's) 4 years long?" is a silly question since you're not actually in that field. why is audiology 4 years? "do you really need 4 years to learn about the ear and hearing and all of that?" that's basically what you're asking here, except that your own answer is "no," and you just want to see what "stupid" thoughts others have. you'll get answers ranging from 1-word to a few paragraphs long and in the end, you're going to dismiss what doesn't agree with your idea of what ODs do. you dismiss one response and another and skim over the rest because you're already convinced beforehand. :rolleyes:

The same could be said for you too mate. You just said the thoughts that weren't aligned with yours were "stupid". And these are from people further in training and more experienced than yourself. And its interesting that you brought up audiology, I think the fact that its 4 years is also overkill, and many practicing audiologists agree! And I've enjoyed this discussion, and have learned something. Your defensive and snarky attitude is not necessary, however, and you would be well-suited to drop it as you progress in your training.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think that OD schools are 4 years in lenght to match medical schools that are generally 4 years in length. It also justifies the doctoral degree. Shorter programs might not seem appropriate for professional doctoral degrees.
 
Is it just me or are some people here having trouble with reading comprehension? The title of this thread is:

Why is optometry school 4 years long?

To answer that question, you have to go to the time when optometry was made 4 years long, because that's WHEN the decision was MADE to MAKE optometry 4 years long. Drumstix is evidently having trouble understanding this concept.

the issue isn't about why it was originally 4 years, it's about what do we do now in ~2016 for the 4 years of school.

No - it is about why it was originally 4 years. Another way of phrasing what you wrote that I underlined is the following:

What do you guys learn in your 4 years of optometry school?

This is NOT the same thing. Go back and learn Grade 9 english reading comprehension if you can't understand why.

I don't get this thread.

I am sure that if you asked any practicing doctor in any field, they would say that there is a significant amount of stuff that they learned in school that they "never use" on a daily basis

You're "not getting" a different point. You think this is a thread about:

Should optometry be 4 years long?

Which again, is NOT the same thing. Go start a thread with that question, and your reply will make sense in that thread. But not this one.

I think that OD schools are 4 years in lenght to match medical schools that are generally 4 years in length. It also justifies the doctoral degree. Shorter programs might not seem appropriate for professional doctoral degrees.

This is a better attempt at answering the question, but it's anachronistic. When the decision to make optometry 4 years long was made, it was a Bachelor's degree at the time (not a doctoral degree). So though it MAY have been made 4 years to "match" medicine, it's not because optometry was a Doctor of Optometry, as it wasn't a doctoral degree yet.

That said, I'm guessing the OP himself didn't mean to suggest the historical causes of optometry being 4 years long - but moreso, whether optometry "should" be 4 years long. But he phrased it in the way he did, and I'm answering the question that he specifically asked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Okay History Channel, thanks for setting us all right. If you and OP can OP over to this thread I'd really OPreciate it: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/why-dentistry-and-podiatry-school-4-years.170945/

Is it just me or are some people here having trouble with reading comprehension? The title of this thread is:

Why is optometry school 4 years long?

To answer that question, you have to go to the time when optometry was made 4 years long, because that's WHEN the decision was MADE to MAKE optometry 4 years long. Drumstix is evidently having trouble understanding this concept.



No - it is about why it was originally 4 years. Another way of phrasing what you wrote that I underlined is the following:

What do you guys learn in your 4 years of optometry school?

This is NOT the same thing. Go back and learn Grade 9 english reading comprehension if you can't understand why.



You're "not getting" a different point. You think this is a thread about:

Should optometry be 4 years long?

Which again, is NOT the same thing. Go start a thread with that question, and your reply will make sense in that thread. But not this one.



This is a better attempt at answering the question, but it's anachronistic. When the decision to make optometry 4 years long was made, it was a Bachelor's degree at the time (not a doctoral degree). So though it MAY have been made 4 years to "match" medicine, it's not because optometry was a Doctor of Optometry, as it wasn't a doctoral degree yet.

That said, I'm guessing the OP himself didn't mean to suggest the historical causes of optometry being 4 years long - but moreso, whether optometry "should" be 4 years long. But he phrased it in the way he did, and I'm answering the question that he specifically asked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Interesting responses so far. One practical answer from a practicing optometrist, and one romanticized answer from an OD resident. Suppose that makes sense lol.

And one loaded question from a Dental student. I love how much students from other professions know about Optometry because they've had an eye exam.

Optometry school is a four year program because the governing bodies organized it that way, and because that's how long it takes to get through boards material. I'm guessing the question was directed more at the "should" rather than the history lesson, Optogal. Not to mention most of your sentences begin with "probably."

Most ODs practice well below their education, whether or not the education should be shortened to that level is subject to opinion. I believe healthcare providers should be experts in their field, and that the four year doctorate level programs that produce these professionals are adequate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Optometry school is a four year program because the governing bodies organized it that way, and because that's how long it takes to get through boards material. I'm guessing the question was directed more at the "should" rather than the history lesson, Optogal. Not to mention most of your sentences begin with "probably."

I didn't bother replying to this earlier because you clearly ignored everything I wrote above. You're simply wrong. I'll use this rhetorical question to prove why. Please answer the following questions honestly, then try to square it with what you wrote above. I'm not being facetious. I'd like to read your logic.

A Bachelor degree in sociology from Podunk University is 4 years long. So is a Bachelor degree in Computer Engineering from M.I.T. If what you say is true, then they are both 4 years long because they have the same level of material/content/rigor as one another. To use your words, they are both 4 years long because their "governing bodies organized it that way, and because that's how long it takes to get through (their) material." So... by coincidence, a B.A. Sociology from Podunk has as much material to (using your words) "get through" as a B.S. Computer Engineering at M.I.T. I can come up with many other examples if you aren't following me.

Do you honestly believe this? Or do you think perhaps, that they are 4 years long because Bachelor degrees are simply defined as being 4 years long?
 
Last edited:
Not to mention, every single effing bachelor degree in the world from every single university happens to be 4 year long. What a big coincidence. That would be the only explanation if you are right.

Or Occam's razor. Bachelor Degrees are defined as being 4 years long.
 
Or do you think perhaps, that they are 4 years long because Bachelor degrees are simply defined as being 4 years long?

As a matter of fact that's exactly what I think. But since I was talking about Optometry schools, not bachelor program comparisons, I'll say it again: Optometry school is four years long because it was organized to be that way. "Coincidentally" that's about how long it takes to get through boards material, plus a year of clinic. I thought I was pretty clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't get this thread.

I am sure that if you asked any practicing doctor in any field, they would say that there is a significant amount of stuff that they learned in school that they "never use" on a daily basis. For me personally, I do not think optometry school can/should be shortened from the current 4 year model. At the same time, I don't think it needs to be expanded or that residency training needs to be made mandatory as you sometimes hear being thrown around.

You could probably make the argument that certain things in training should be emphasized less and other things emphasized more but I think four years is about right.
Optometry would do well to copy the medical model and have 2 years of rotations. That would obviate the need for "required" residency.
 
Is there any doctorate degree that is under 4 years? In short, that is the reason why my degree is a doctorate. If it was 2 years, it would be difficult to argue to make our degree a doctorate. I use about 20% of what I learned in school as a practicing optometrist. Everything else is just fluff but how could we be "doctors" if our degree took 24 months for example? It wouldn't be. Then how could we argue with OMDs that we can prescribe medicine, drops, perform lasers, or do surgery without a doctorate degree? That is truth..like it or not.
 
It would literally double your clinical experience and be more in line with dentistry.

I didn't know Dental school involved two years of clinical rotations. Do you think an extra year of seeing patients as a student would be a huge boon to the profession as a whole?
 
But since I was talking about Optometry schools, not bachelor program comparisons, I'll say it again: Optometry school is four years long because it was organized to be that way.

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me, but the Bachelor program comparison is relevant. Ever since 1970, every optometry degree awarded in the US has been the doctoral OD degree. In 1969, UCB was still awarding a Bachelor Degree in Optometry (they were the last holdout), and that was a 4 year degree.

It doesn't matter how you skew the data, I think most of us would agree the curriculum has expanded since 1969. That was pre-TPA, pre-DPA. Health assessments were rudimentary. No OCT, fundus photography, corneal pachymetry, topography etc. I took 8 courses a term in 2nd year. I doubt students did that in 1969. So let's agree that the curriculum has expanded since 1969. Agree? But the duration of the (optometry) program has not. Ergo, the curriculum does not dictate the length of the program.

Then how could we argue with OMDs that we can prescribe medicine, drops, perform lasers, or do surgery without a doctorate degree? That is truth..like it or not.

Yeah basically. As I said above, degrees are the length they are to satisfy outside political directives that were established many many generations ago.
 
I'm going to say that arguing this matter - Should optometry be 4 years long? (with the implication that its curriculum doesn't warrant such a length) is a moot point. The reason? Because the curriculum didn't dictate its length. So arguing should or should not based on the curriculum content is moot. Its length was decided by other factors.
 
It would literally double your clinical experience and be more in line with dentistry.
We don't do as many procedures as dentists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My uncle has been practicing since 1993 and said he feels OD school could be reduced to 3 years pretty easily. I don't know enough about OD school to give my input so I'm just taking what he said.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
My uncle has been practicing since 1993 and said he feels OD school could be reduced to 3 years pretty easily. I don't know enough about OD school to give my input so I'm just taking what he said.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Then it wouldn't be a doctorate degree. Most ODs practice well below their education, that's not the point.
 
Top