Experience vs. Classroom Learning
I would like to begin this thread with a few observations and opinions........
First, I would like to say that I have read probably a couple hundred posts tonight, both in the general discussion and in the ophthalmic optics forums. I am excited about learning tips / tricks/ information /insight from the numerous experienced individulas that post here
Secondly, I would like to say that there does seem to be a slightly aggressive and/or demeaning view (by some) of optometry as it pertains to the optometrist's ability to properly understand, implement, and execute many ophthalmic optics and dispensing principles. I know that the knowledge possessed by many on this board is vastly superior to mine, however, I do wish to say on my behalf at least, that I realize where the "bread and butter" of optometry is, and that I consider my knoweledge of optics and or dispensing to be very good, and getting better by the year. That led me to the following:
How much of this knowledge by everyone has been acquired via experience vs. on the job training vs. classwork/education, and as a followup, which method of knoweledge attainment provided the most relevant information and skills to everyday opticianry and dispensing?
It seems to me that no matter how much I learn from all of my fancy overpriced textbooks, with their pretty illustrations and lengthy author pedigrees, I always learn something not mentioned in the books by "doing". As such, it seems that I am in for a few years of "oops"s, "awww craps"s, and "uh-oh, I don't think that's supposed to do that"s.
Bread and Butter......that's about all I can afford
Laurie, I agree that it is essential to understand the "why" when trying to implement our knowledge. Too often in my optometry class, some seem content to memorize facts and numbers, but fail to understand the key basic concepts that lead to the numbers and facts. I swear I am not trying to stir up trouble with the following statement.......honest........It would be entirely possible to teach a monkey "how" to refract, and in most cases it would do a pretty good job most likely. However, it is those cases that don't perform as they are supposed to, that don't give the response that a "normal" patient would give that would throw the monkey. That is when we must truly implement our understanding of what is going on behind that phoropter, and come up with a reason and a solution......We must use our knowledge of human anatomy, physiology, optics, pathology, etc. etc. to figure out why the heck this patient is responding as they are. This is where some of my future colleagues struggle, why yes, they now HOW to perform BI and BO ranges on a patient, but what does it mean if they report a blur at distance with BI, should the optometrist be concerned, or just move on and ignore it.....there are hundreds of examples. All that was just a long winded way to say I agree with the need to understand the "why", or else we will be replaced by monkeys who work for produce.
And Pete, you got it, I am anticipating graduating from SCO in 2004, if I make it pass pharmacology that is (vicious test coming up on Mon);)
I can only speak for myself of course, but believe it or not the fact that Optometry's bread and butter is a quality refraction and the competent dispensing of corrective lenses/frames is beat into our skulls at SCO. We have been reminded of that fact ad nauseum, but unfortunately for some it is just not as sexy as ocular disease.....which makes a small portion of our actual practice when we get out.
Sorry to be so long winded, but I am procrastinating my studies!
As far as the negative responses to my posts, in the immortal words of Bart Simpson, "Whatever, dude". I am fully confident in my knoweledge of many subjects, and am more than willing to admit my shortcomings and take a backseat when need be.....briefly, I know what I know, and the rest I am not so sure of.