A General Observation

[sharpstick777]

LOW BAR = functional glasses (everyone in the industry should be able to do this and when they can't I'm not gonna cry for the profession about it.)

HIGH BAR = Glasses that add style, glasses that make you look gorgeous, glasses that have men walking out feeling 2 inches taller. (those are my goals, that to me is frame stylin')

HIGHEST BAR = The ability to perfectly match any progressive lens with the needs of the patient and trouble-shoot any issues with speed and accuracy.

[Uilleann]

I don't believe I've ever said the ABO (the organization) was bad. The test is weak, and that's a reflection on those taking it, not the organization...

I respectfully, but categorically disagree and I WILL say it:

The ABO is absolutely and very directly the problem in this case.

Any organization that would purposefully "dumb-down" any certifying examination or set of standards for no other reason than to line their own pockets is utterly contemptible. Make no mistake - money - is the single largest motivating factor of that organization (as with others now also, but that's another thread). There is no reason nor excuse for this course of action - apart from rampant greed within the ABO. To say that it is all "for the good of the test takers" is ********. They're a self-serving entity, and they operate as such. Make the test realistic and relevant in today's market, and their revenue stream dries to a trickle.

They would hold much greater 'street cred' with both the working independent optician and hiring ecp practices if they simply were in it for the good of both the dispensing optician and the patient, rather than simply working to pad their bank account. There is no other reason to continually work to simplify a given testing standard that those actually involved on the front lines of dispensing feel is inadequate in almost every way. I'd love to see them nut up or shut up. Raise the bar ABO - become what you've always claimed you are, but never delivered. Yep - you're called on the carpet.

[Wes]

Uilleann, you're clearly leaving out the meat of my statement. This is called "Quote-mining" See the following in BOLD:

I don't believe I've ever said the ABO (the organization) was bad. The test is weak, and that's a reflection on those taking it, not the organization. As a certifying body, they must make the certifying exam reflect the general competency level of those in the profession. When I/we say the NOCE is a "Mickey mouse" exam, we have to realize that's because we are populated with "Mickey mouse" opticians.
If the NOCE had a pass rate of 5% like the Advanced NOCE (which is a much better benchmark for what an optician should be), the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) would be all over the ABO. The ABO is not the problem. Opticians are. We need to improve or go extinct.

This goes to my point:
How many of you have heard or remember that the exam used to be harder? That it's easier now? If that's actually true, that means that we are in a declining field. The exam reflects us. We must change ourselves, and the exam will change to reflect us.

Barry makes the following statements supporting my point:

A long time ago, when I was but a couple of years out of school, I went to work for an optician who was then on the NYS board of ophthlmic dispensing examiners. As he was in charge of the Ophthalmic Dispensing portion of the what was then a 3Day, 7-part written exam, he asked me and my close fiend, who also worked with me there, to help make up about 50 new questions for that part of the 100 question, multiple-choice format.

Over a week, we did.

He looked them over and thought they were all good. He put them all in, all 50 of them. The result?

Not good.

Although the passing rate back then was either 65 or 68, the average score statewide for that section that year was 35. My boss was called on the carpet to explain, and vehemently defended the efficacy of the questions.

The result? Err, no child was left behind, because the board decided to throw out that section from the overall scoring.

Moral: if you want high standards, some eggs are gonna break in the process of making a truly great omellette. Kinda like the ABOM.

It's your choice.
B

Honestly the problem is NOT the ABO, it is the general ability of opticians. The ABO as a Certifying Agency must meet the standards of the National Commission for Certifying Agencies. The exams must be professionally rendered, and evaluated based on the skillset and knowledge of the profession. If too many people fail, the test is called into question. However, I call opticians' poor educational background into question and blame that for the continual "dumbing down" of the test. Honestly, by calling the organization into question, you demonstrate that you do not understand how professional testing is done and evaluated. Roy Ferguson is probably the most qualified to weigh in here on this subject.
I understand why you feel the way you do, and honestly, I used to feel the same way. As I progressed through the MBA program (and had the professional testing and evaluation system explained to me by Roy), I learned quite a bit and have a better understanding of why our field is the way it is. Most opticians just don't have the training to understand this. Roy does. Warren does. I'm working on it.

[tmorse]

I respectfully, but categorically disagree and I WILL say it:

The ABO is absolutely and very directly the problem in this case.

Any organization that would purposefully "dumb-down" any certifying examination or set of standards for no other reason than to line their own pockets is utterly contemptible. Make no mistake - money - is the single largest motivating factor of that organization (as with others now also, but that's another thread). There is no reason nor excuse for this course of action - apart from rampant greed within the ABO. To say that it is all "for the good of the test takers" is ********. They're a self-serving entity, and they operate as such. Make the test realistic and relevant in today's market, and their revenue stream dries to a trickle.

They would hold much greater 'street cred' with both the working independent optician and hiring ecp practices if they simply were in it for the good of both the dispensing optician and the patient, rather than simply working to pad their bank account. There is no other reason to continually work to simplify a given testing standard that those actually involved on the front lines of dispensing feel is inadequate in almost every way. I'd love to see them nut up or shut up. Raise the bar ABO - become what you've always claimed you are, but never delivered. Yep - you're called on the carpet.

+1

[tmorse]

I understand that four (4) NFOS schools are now on the ABO Board. So hopefully we can expect some long-overdue changes in basic ABO exam content.

[tx11]

Maybe we should come up with a test for CERTIFIED FRAME STYLIST. There are many aspects of frame styling that can be learned and tested on (fashion excluded). And then up the level of ABOC. You would have to grandfather all the current ABOC,ABOC-AC and ABOM's,. But by creating a new certification level for entry level you reposition the role of opticians. Then legislation must be passed that will limit the scope of CFS to the selection of frames and only allow ABOC to take measurements, make lens recommendations and dispense eyewear.