why not medicine?

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

scraders

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
i know that this question will come up during interviews. are these appropriate responses to the question?

1. less chance of doing permanant damage.
2. more time to spend with family.
3. less stress.
4. regular business hours...rarely emergency calls...

these responses seem kind of selfish, but they are main reasons why i chose optometry over medicine.

how would you answer this question on an interview? i have one with ico this thursday...
 
You can always say something about how amazing you think the visual system is, but you are not interested in performing invasive surgery. You like the idea of running a medical practice (the exam and treatment part) and a retail business (the optical aspect).

You can do a little research about visual perception and talk about that. Say something about how you want to learn about how the brain interprets visual stimuli. Basically we are talking about optical illusions. We spend a lot of hours learning about this stuff, so expressing interest it may be a good idea.

The whole idea of having more time than MD/DOs is really over used. It will not stick out in the interview. Besides, then why not DDS, DPM, DC?
 
rpames said:
You can always say something about how amazing you think the visual system is, but you are not interested in performing invasive surgery.

Just make sure you don't use that answer in Oklahoma. 😉
 
Okay, so here's the deal. I want to help you get into optometry school. Here is all my advise from experiences; take it or leave it. (I interviewed at 3 schools last year, ICO, Pacific and SUNY and got into all three. I'm not bragging, I'm just saying there may be a method to my madness 😉

I probably wouldn't mention the answer about "less chance of permanent damage". If I was your interviewer and you told me that, I would think that you were not confident in your abilities. If you're already thinking negatively (ie. How to get out of law suits when the occur), this may be concerning to your interviewer. Generally, it's best to keep things positive.

Another thing to note is I interviewed at 3 optometry schools last year and none of them asked me why I didn't want to be a physician. They all asked why I wanted to be an optometrist though. Be ready to answer that question, and answer it in a positive way. Too many people mistake the question, "why do you want to be an optometrist" with the question "why don't you want to be a physician". Very different questions, so realize what the're asking.

Obviously every answer you give for why you want to be an optometrist should be unique to yourself. That being said, there are many generic "right" answers as well. As you mentioned, most of your answers are selfish, that's okay, but I think you can make a stronger case for yourself if you throw in some selfless reasons. My reasons:

1) I want to help people (By itself, it's a dumb, overused answer. But you can spruce it up by saying, "I really love to work with kids/elderly ppl and I think often times there are way too many missed problems with kids which affect there ability to learn. I would love to really make a difference in their lives." )
2) Regular work schedule/family time is a great reason, probably one of the best reasons to go into optometry, so feel free to use that one
3) You could throw in your interest in pathology. All the optom schools seem to be getting really interested in pathology (for a better or worse), so you can say that you're really excited about seeing all sorts of ocular problems
4) Maybe mention something about being in a profession where you are continually learning...everyone likes to hear that. Then it makes you sound like you don't just want easy money, but you really want to learn
5) Last thing, and one of the hugest in my opinion. Talk about how great you can be for the profession. Whenever I brought this up with any school, they got really into me and basically after that point I could say whatever I wanted. As you know, opticians, optometrists and opthamologists (I can't even spell it) have a constant power struggle going on. Optometry schools (private ones at least) make their money from you, the student. So optometry schools want to make sure they are around for a long time. Go into your interview knowing about a couple of key issues, and explaining how you are going to fight for your profession and all that stuff. (Don't get into too controversial stuff like should optoms be doing surgery, because everyone sort of has different views on that). If you want to bring up an interesting point, you can talk about how Optician's in Canada can do refractions, and the threat of that moving to the U.S....and how you will fight adamently to stop it.

Above all else here is the secret to getting into optometry (and medical school for that matter). Be passionate. I don't care if you're not passionate, just do it! Do it! Use strong adjectives, "I would love to do this", "I am excited about"....

My post is long enough now, so hopefully you can extract some useful information from this. If you have any other specific questions, feel free to PM me of just post it on this form. Good luck!

ps. Little disclaimer: Obviously, you need to be yourself in the interview, so don't try to use my answers without A) Believing in them and/or B) Knowing a little bit about them.
 
Potato!,

Where are you located in Canada? Is the problem with opticians refracting more of an issuse outside of Ontario? In my experience I've only heard of opticians refracting in one location, and that was under the supposed "supervision" of an opthamolagist. I'm certain that opticians do not have this explicit right of practice anywhere in Canada, expect when supervisied by an opthamologist (the opthamologist would have to then sign the prescription) - a practice the CAO is definately not happy with and another point of disagreement with physicians. However, I have also read about opticians in British Columbia lobbying the government to expand their scope, could they have been sucessful?
 
BC already let Opticians use a auto phoryptor as a sight tester on people in BC from age 19-65 already. It was actually a pretty long time ago. If you require more info.. msg me, I live in BC and am currently working in an optical shop that has it.
 
As Katalio mention, yes indeed opticians are using a computerized sight testing device (Called the eyelogic system) to prescribe corrective lenses to people between the ages of 19-65. It's an older practise to use an autorefractor, as these machines aren't completely accurate much of the time. With the new technology (eye logic system), a subjective refraction can be done. Opticians do not need an opthamologists (or optometrist's) signature in order to do this. Currently, this is only happening in British Columbia. I am located in Vancouver, so I've seen it going on. The official legislation (it is still in a trial period) got past not too long ago. Wasn't it in July? Before that, opticians were doing refractions, but illegally and kinda under the table. They'd do a refraction, then send the script away to an opthamologist in another city. The opthamologist would sign it (without ever seeing the patient, or anything like that) and then it would be legal. It was a sketchy practise, but it was going on for awhile. Opticians would pay the ophtamologists a cut of the money. In any case, as I mentioned, it's not a bad idea to bring this type of thing up in your interview and explain how you will fight to make sure this doesn't happen in the US of A.
 
Potato! said:
As Katalio mention, yes indeed opticians are using a computerized sight testing device (Called the eyelogic system) to prescribe corrective lenses to people between the ages of 19-65. It's an older practise to use an autorefractor, as these machines aren't completely accurate much of the time. With the new technology (eye logic system), a subjective refraction can be done. Opticians do not need an opthamologists (or optometrist's) signature in order to do this. Currently, this is only happening in British Columbia. I am located in Vancouver, so I've seen it going on. The official legislation (it is still in a trial period) got past not too long ago. Wasn't it in July? Before that, opticians were doing refractions, but illegally and kinda under the table. They'd do a refraction, then send the script away to an opthamologist in another city. The opthamologist would sign it (without ever seeing the patient, or anything like that) and then it would be legal. It was a sketchy practise, but it was going on for awhile. Opticians would pay the ophtamologists a cut of the money. In any case, as I mentioned, it's not a bad idea to bring this type of thing up in your interview and explain how you will fight to make sure this doesn't happen in the US of A.
Is all of this because of a lack of optometrists or because of a lack of law enforcement?
 
Neither, apparently, it is legal for opticians in the province to provide autorefraction without any medical or optometric supervision. I just read a timeline of events that lead up to this ( http://www.optometrists.bc.ca/critical_issue/sighttestinghistory1.pdf ) ... the whole build up to this is rather convoluted. But the main points are; the previous Minister of Health resigned due to health matters, and the new minister sided with the opticians lobby based on some questionable data:

Minister Hansen claims his staff has done research that proves it is safe for opticians to do refractions in isolation. Two weeks later, the B.C. Association of Optometrists is given a copy of this ?research? by Minister Hansen?s staff. It consists of one article written by the president of Eyelogic Corporation, Dr. Dyer and his partner Dr. Kirk, in 2000. The article does not look at the safety of allowing opticians to refract independently; rather, it looks at the accuracy of the glasses prescription resulting from the Eyelogic system.

It seems that the opticians became interested in refracting when the province de-insured optometric care for individuals aged 19-65, thus presenting opticians the oportunity of providing a free "exam" with purchase of spectacles...

Does anyone (Katalio?) know how many people these refracting opticians are refering to physicians to deal with medical problems? Given the ~1/7 incidence of pathology without symptoms optometrist generally encounter than it seems alot of people with undetected ocular and ocular-related disease in BC are slipping through the net. Do the opticians inform their customers that they are only refracting and not looking for problems that may be there?

Sorry this is so long!

Jeff
 
Wohoo.I get to answer stuff again! ahha..feels like I"m contributing! haha..
Anyways..first of all, it is kinda sketchy that Opticians send their results to an OMD then the OMD writes a prescription then send it back to the optical shop then it becomes legal. and YEs.. opticians have to pay the OMD everytime they fax etc etc.

2.) Now, the opticians I believe STILL have to send it to the OMD (actually..if I 'm not wrong..they somehow can send it to an OD as well, but I'm not 100% sure).

3.) I personally don't see a HUGE "WRONG" in the opticians refracting because it does in a way serve as a alternative to those that do not go to OD at all. You can argue that once opticians get to refract, ppl will go to opticians instead of OD.. appearantly, that is not the case. I volunteer for an OD and he still have lots of patients so I don't think it's affecting it a lot. In a way,it's better for thsoe who go to optician for refraction test rather than not going at all and sticks to their old prescription just b/c they wanna save some $$

4.) I would really think that the OD are fighting vs the opticians about the refraction issue because of the MONEY.. YES.. I would say 9/10 OD who argues that opticians cannot refract is becoz of money. If you calclate how much money they lose due to this, you'll understand why they fought so hard. ( those who are 19-65 are not covered by the government so they have to fork out 75 / exam)

5.) The bad thing about opticians refracting is becoz of pathology.. I admit that this is a flaw.. seriously... coz opticians cannot determine what's wrong with the health of the eye.. (except for some opticans). But then if you think about it, opticians can actually take some course that helps opticians spot out any irregularities in the eye then refer them to OD.. but appearantly, they dont' offer such courses.

6.)jefguth, it's hard to say the validity of the link posted on your site becoz it was written in an OD point of view, but if you read the articles posted by the opticians of BC..you get another view.. hehe... so you kinda have to look at it from both side.

7.) There I think lie a reason behind all this... in a way, it is kinda the OD in BC that's at fault because most of the OD in BC don't appreciate opticians, they tried to prescribe glasses, Contacts, etc etc in their settings. Since that's the case, a lot of opticians do not get enough business to support their living. If they can view OD as doctors, and opticians as pharmacist, then everything will be settled, but NO, OD tries to step over the border and sell merchandises as well ( why? simple, you make more by doing the optical business than just doing eye exams). I''m not saying that OD are 100% at fault, opticians have faults too because they simply don't have enough knowledge to perform these kind of tests. They put the customers' eyes at risk by introducing the EyeLogic System.

8.) as I mention in a post a long time ago, I hate to say it, but if you are just checking the prescription of a HEALTHY person... the eyelogic is actually very accurate... it does no worse than an OD actually doing the refraction.

9.) (edited) I wonder did anyone actually did a statistic of HOW many ppl has severe eye problems DUE PURELY TO OPTICIANS REFRACTING and not OD refracting. I've seen articles that headlines " Optometrist save a patient's life" and "Optometrist spot out tumor" then elaborates on how OD can do it while opticians jepordizes the health of the population in BC. Those are just 1 or 2 cases in A LOT of refractions/eye exams done in a day, so we need to consider how strong is the arguement.

10.) Last point, It really does sound like I am against the OD and supporting the opticians here, but then I assure you guys that's not the case. I am just trying to give you guys both views because this is indeed an OD/Pre OD forum, so mostly ppl tend to bias some views. I myself is going to become an optician in a few months(after 2 yrs of studies), and I know for sure that we don't have enough knowledge to look at the health of the eye (that's why I want to pursue optometry).

Hm..hope you guys are still awake! lol..
good luck to those who applied of OD this yr (INCL> ME!!!)


Katalio
 
To read all you can handle on this issue, go over to www.seniordoc.org . You need to sign up to be able to read all the private forums. You'll find the forum, "State of the Profession" very interesting. Lots of stuff about the opticians refracting in BC.
 
Because you will never have to disimpact someone on an IM rotation/internship.
 
scraders said:
i know that this question will come up during interviews. are these appropriate responses to the question?

1. less chance of doing permanant damage.
2. more time to spend with family.
3. less stress.
4. regular business hours...rarely emergency calls...

these responses seem kind of selfish, but they are main reasons why i chose optometry over medicine.

how would you answer this question on an interview? i have one with ico this thursday...

family spending time is a biggie
 
Top