Is "education" really the answer employers are looking for?

[Diane]

@ Diane -perhaps you didn't have the right vehicle to use as a change agent. Perhaps opticians weren't ready. Perhaps things are different.

Wes, I'll use Laurie's term here...my Polly Anna girl attitute, is that I'm positive that things will look up. I'm optimistic about the future of our profession. I believe that you are correct...the time has come for that change.

Diane

[Uilleann]

You seem to be somewhat hung up on my credentials. I am a professor, which requires my level of education, but I never indicated Opticians need a PhD or any graduate-level degree to explain lens designs. What I know, and is clear from reading this board is that most Opticians cannot explain much more than a PD and seg height (and often that is questionable), and we need to educate them. I am sorry of you are feeling inadequate, but trust me, I make my case and it remains intact. Your personal jabs do not deter me in any way. It is obvious you feel Opticians do not need education to anyone who reads your posts. You come from Utah, a non-licensed state. You have no real credentials yourself, and so I can understand your feelings of inadequacy, but there is help. As to branding, I have studied this topic, and stand by my case. To brand something requires a consistant product, which we are not. In fact, if you came to NC (my state) you could not legally use the title Optician without sitting for the boards. I hope that makes sense to you, but I doubt it.

You are correct in one assertion. Employers do not want to pay for education right now. We have allowed someone other than ourselves to determine the level of education and training required for our field. Pharmacists did not, and have gone from a BS to a PharmD degree, demanding higher incomes. Dental Hygenists took a similar path. Only we lag behind all other health-related occupations. If we increase the requirements for future Opticians, we can, down the road, improve the lot for all. But you disagree, so I waste my breath again.

I presented my argument, and it has remainded the same for many years. If you think you worry me in the leaast, trust me, you do not. In the early days of the 80s when I was singing this song, everyone was against me. Now, as is evident, I have a lot of support, because anyone who can objectively think can see we are not progressing. Why not get out of the way and even try to help. Provide something positive for a change.

Ah Warren, the reality is staring you in the face, and yet you do not see. You certainly do not intimidate me, nor does your (or anyone else's) degree. There are always some with paper on the wall deserving more respect than others of course, and the same sentiment is borne out with employers nationwide - not just in optical positions. I would give the general posting populous of these boards a little more credit than you have - but again, to each their own. Regardless, we are in agreement that most who post here aren't representative of the status quo in the states, and indeed tend to represent a generally higher cross section.

To anyone who actually reads my posts, they'll instantly know that I have never said that anyone should not be educated. I'll let you do the research there - which of course, you won't. You are free to continue making wild and baseless assumptions as if you knew the first thing about me, where I come from, what my own personal educational background is, and even what my own experience has been in various optical fields. The reality is, you have absolutely no idea of what you speak, and your wild guesses about me couldn't be further from reality. But if it amuses you do continue to do so, by all means carry on.

You keep speaking of a vague utopian dream of higher education for all opticians. Unfortunately you have no viable product currently in the market. There is likely to be no agreement state to state as to minimum educational requirements, and as the number of licensed states are declining - not growing - we will never see licensure in all 50. Even in the few that still require it today, the requirements vary wildly, with some requiring little more than a pulse to be 'official'. Not a great system nationwide is it?

And we still have that pesky problem of the public's perception of opticianry. Your education program can't have a hope of 'educating' the public as to why they should avoid the web, and the cut rate chains, and come to the 'educated' optician - paying many times more to cover that big educated salary you'll demand - for what they will still view as the same product. Brand dispensing opticianry and/or lab technicians as something different - something much more than it is publicly seen as today, and perhaps you'll have an ice cube's chance...

I can assure you, that I don't expend a second of effort wondering if I worry you. While you don't me either, I am certain we'll both sleep comfortably tonight.

[Grubendol]

I'm pretty tired of hearing how expensive school is and I can't get a job out of college. Heres a few suggestions:

1. Ditch the car
2. Live in the dorms
3. eat the school meals
4. don't take spring break
5. finish in four years like us old fogeys used to do

And the number one thing. Get a degree that people actually want to hire for !!

One problem with that, even a state school, doing what you suggest, costs thousands of dollars a year. Loans/grants/scholarships are still required to pay your way.

[EyeCare Rich]

Well said Diane! I agree with much of what you stated back in 1998, from some of the threads on OB, a lot of these questions/statements unfortunatly still stand true today. Did the summit that happened recently address these issues? Are we going to move forward at all in the next 15 years? I believe Uilleann had some very valid points in his argument above unfortunatly. The public already doesn't understand, or value in a lot of cases what an optician is or does. Some learn with poor experiences and come back, but I would say a majority do not understand.

[Diane]

Well said Diane! I agree with much of what you stated back in 1998, from some of the threads on OB, a lot of these questions/statements unfortunatly still stand true today. Did the summit that happened recently address these issues? Are we going to move forward at all in the next 15 years? I believe Uilleann had some very valid points in his argument above unfortunatly. The public already doesn't understand, or value in a lot of cases what an optician is or does. Some learn with poor experiences and come back, but I would say a majority do not understand.

I e-mailed the report to a few of the folks who attended the summit. I know some of it was shared during their committee work, but it was not presented as a whole. I would love to know more about the results of the summit. I am still excited about what happened there. Optimistic:)

Diane

[wmcdonald]

Well said Diane! I agree with much of what you stated back in 1998, from some of the threads on OB, a lot of these questions/statements unfortunatly still stand true today. Did the summit that happened recently address these issues? Are we going to move forward at all in the next 15 years? I believe Uilleann had some very valid points in his argument above unfortunatly. The public already doesn't understand, or value in a lot of cases what an optician is or does. Some learn with poor experiences and come back, but I would say a majority do not understand.

The public? Hell, we do not understand. Uillean has his opinion of what is wrong, but I ask him and you........add something positive, if you can. I and others see education as the vehicle and have offered a well-defined plan to get there. What is his/yours? It is not the public that is our enemy, it is us. We can't even agree on how to define Optician ourselves, so how can we expect the public.

[Uilleann]

The public already has. They define you, us and anyone with their pocketbook.

And Warren, you've been given quite a bit of varied opinion over the past what three years now isn't it? There were quite a few of us who were interested in the potential of growing the practice of dispensing. And you know right well why you lost a good number of us in your camp. How did you treat it? How do you continue to treat it?

[wmcdonald]

Ah Warren, the reality is staring you in the face, and yet you do not see. You certainly do not intimidate me, nor does your (or anyone else's) degree. There are always some with paper on the wall deserving more respect than others of course, and the same sentiment is borne out with employers nationwide - not just in optical positions. I would give the general posting populous of these boards a little more credit than you have - but again, to each their own. Regardless, we are in agreement that most who post here aren't representative of the status quo in the states, and indeed tend to represent a generally higher cross section.

To anyone who actually reads my posts, they'll instantly know that I have never said that anyone should not be educated. I'll let you do the research there - which of course, you won't. You are free to continue making wild and baseless assumptions as if you knew the first thing about me, where I come from, what my own personal educational background is, and even what my own experience has been in various optical fields. The reality is, you have absolutely no idea of what you speak, and your wild guesses about me couldn't be further from reality. But if it amuses you do continue to do so, by all means carry on.

You keep speaking of a vague utopian dream of higher education for all opticians. Unfortunately you have no viable product currently in the market. There is likely to be no agreement state to state as to minimum educational requirements, and as the number of licensed states are declining - not growing - we will never see licensure in all 50. Even in the few that still require it today, the requirements vary wildly, with some requiring little more than a pulse to be 'official'. Not a great system nationwide is it?

And we still have that pesky problem of the public's perception of opticianry. Your education program can't have a hope of 'educating' the public as to why they should avoid the web, and the cut rate chains, and come to the 'educated' optician - paying many times more to cover that big educated salary you'll demand - for what they will still view as the same product. Brand dispensing opticianry and/or lab technicians as something different - something much more than it is publicly seen as today, and perhaps you'll have an ice cube's chance...

I can assure you, that I don't expend a second of effort wondering if I worry you. While you don't me either, I am certain we'll both sleep comfortably tonight.

No I do not know you, but have offered to meet with you face-to-face, but you have not taken me up on that yet. I would enjoy the opportunity, because, believe it or not, I do feel you have a solid ability to stay the course for what you believe. I respect that. So may be one day we can really sit down, and you can let me try to change your mind. Harry will tell you that he did not agree with me at all until he spent some time with Roy and me at a conference some time back, and now he understands where we are coing from. I hope you will give me the same opportunity.

As to this utopian dream........early in the 1900s a group of folks (Opticians) became very frustrated with the state of the field and broke away, founding Optometry. I do not want to break away, but to rise all ships along the way, and I am convinced education at some level is the key. Your argument is that folks will not pay for it, so why try. Your path leads to the eventual and final demise of the field that meant a lot in my development. My path improves us all, but requires effort. Will it be immediate? Of course not. It will take a long time, but it can happen if we apply enough elbow grease. Utopian it may be, but at least I offer it.

Now as to intimidation.....I did not say I intimidated anyone. Only that you are expressing signs of inadequacy. To be sure an educated man could not denigrate education the way you have? I usually hear such from those who have no education at all beyond apprenticeship. You are in a state that requires only a pulse to use our title, so I can only assume, based on your comments that you do not support education for this field. You have stated it clearly above as well. Can people succeed with no education? Of course, but a profession cannot survive without a clear path to entry and continual improvement. I am sorry we disagree on this point. You see today and I see tomorrow.

Lastly, the public already perceives us as college educated at the bachelor's level. The only study ogf its type in the country has been published widely. I do not want to see us become mere tradesmen, and seek to be retailers. I want to see us expand. I ask again, get out of the way and even help move forward with a plan of your own.

[wmcdonald]

The public already has. They define you, us and anyone with their pocketbook.

And Warren, you've been given quite a bit of varied opinion over the past what three years now isn't it? There were quite a few of us who were interested in the potential of growing the practice of dispensing. And you know right well why you lost a good number of us in your camp. How did you treat it? How do you continue to treat it?

My opinion has not varied an inch, as many will attest to. It is only in your perverted interpretation, which is a personal issue. This is not about personalities, but about improving the field. Grow up!

[Uilleann]

We all know your opinion hasn't varied. And therein perhaps lies much of the potential trouble. While you claim it isn't about personalities, the posts here, along with the numerous emails and phone calls show a reality very different from your statement.

Grow up indeed.

[Wes]

...There were quite a few of us who were interested in the potential of growing the practice of dispensing. And you know right well why you lost a good number of us in your camp. How did you treat it? How do you continue to treat it?

Can you enlighten the rest of us as to why we "lost" you?

[Roy R. Ferguson]

It has been my experience that it’s fruitless to argue with those who claim expertise based solely on lengthy work experience. And, while it is difficult to determine the knowledge base of those arguing against education for opticians, it is possible to present a few selected test results from past practical examinations for contemplation. When we discuss the current and future state of opticianry, consider the following test results from a one year period:

From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 36% cannot neutralize the distance portion.
From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 36% cannot the measure fitting cross height.
From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 51% cannot measure the amount of prism thinning.
From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 40% cannot analyze the lenses for unwanted vertical prism
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 51% cannot determine the add power.
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 66% cannot measure thedistance between prism reference points.
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 22% cannot identify the seg width.
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 54% cannot analyze the lenses for unwanted vertical prism.
55% cannot calculate vertical imbalance.
41% cannot split prism for best cosmetic effect.
22% cannot transpose a prescription.

The bottom line is that ignorance is not a professional quality even for an optical salesclerk.

[Fezz]

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round!

[Wes]

Roy when I read that I hear in my head things like:
Can't divide by 2
Can't measure with a number stick
Can't add
Can't perform at 5th grade level - are opticians smarter than a 5th grader?

[Wes]

Fezz, PETA's looking for you.

[Uilleann]

It has been my experience that it’s fruitless to argue with thosewho claim expertise based solely on lengthy work experience.

Another insinuation of no post-secondary educational experience? Ní bhíonn saoi gan locht.

And, while it is difficult to determine theknowledge base of those arguing against education for opticians, it is possibleto present a few selected test results from past practical examinations forcontemplation. When we discuss thecurrent and future state of opticianry, consider the following test results froma one year period:

From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses,36% cannot neutralize the distance portion.
From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 36%cannot the measure fitting cross height.
From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 51%cannot measure the amount of prism thinning.
From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 40%cannot analyze the lenses for unwanted vertical prism
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 51% cannotdetermine the add power.
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 66%cannot measure thedistance between prism reference points.
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 22% cannot identifythe seg width.
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 54% cannot analyzethe lenses for unwanted vertical prism.
55% cannot calculate vertical imbalance.
41% cannot split prism for best cosmetic effect.
22% cannot transpose a prescription.

The bottom line is that ignorance is not a professionalquality even for an optical salesclerk.

Until you can divine a way to enlighten and convince the general public as to the why any of the above it pertinent and of direct importance to them - you will continue to see downward pressure on wages and upward on production volume...not education or papers on the wall. Something web vendors (an many big boxes, chains and even some independents to a lesser degree perhaps) are exploiting with wild success.

[Wes]

Your google translator is strong. There's a very easy way to eliminate such "insinuations".

[gmc]

Can you enlighten the rest of us as to why we "lost" you?

Looking back at the mammoth "Entry Requirements" thread that spawned the SAO, he didn't like the venues, that he would have to pay to attend and that we were perceived to be in bed with the other organizations.

I asked the Utahn once what he was doing to advance opticianry and he replied with his usual flippant attitude that those that need to know already know. I gave up on him after that.

[Barry Santini]

Originally Posted by Roy R. Ferguson And, while it is difficult to determine theknowledge base of those arguing against education for opticians, it is possibleto present a few selected test results from past practical examinations forcontemplation. When we discuss thecurrent and future state of opticianry, consider the following test results froma one year period:

From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses,36% cannot neutralize the distance portion.
From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 36%cannot the measure fitting cross height.
From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 51%cannot measure the amount of prism thinning.
From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 40%cannot analyze the lenses for unwanted vertical prism
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 51% cannotdetermine the add power.
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 66%cannot measure thedistance between prism reference points.
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 22% cannot identifythe seg width.
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 54% cannot analyzethe lenses for unwanted vertical prism.
55% cannot calculate vertical imbalance.
41% cannot split prism for best cosmetic effect.
22% cannot transpose a prescription.

The bottom line is that ignorance is not a professionalquality even for an optical salesclerk.


None of this helps "sell" glasses.

B

[gmc]

Originally Posted by Roy R. Ferguson And, while it is difficult to determine theknowledge base of those arguing against education for opticians, it is possibleto present a few selected test results from past practical examinations forcontemplation. When we discuss thecurrent and future state of opticianry, consider the following test results froma one year period:

From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses,36% cannot neutralize the distance portion.
From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 36%cannot the measure fitting cross height.
From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 51%cannot measure the amount of prism thinning.
From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 40%cannot analyze the lenses for unwanted vertical prism
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 51% cannotdetermine the add power.
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 66%cannot measure thedistance between prism reference points.
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 22% cannot identifythe seg width.
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 54% cannot analyzethe lenses for unwanted vertical prism.
55% cannot calculate vertical imbalance.
41% cannot split prism for best cosmetic effect.
22% cannot transpose a prescription.

The bottom line is that ignorance is not a professionalquality even for an optical salesclerk.


None of this helps "sell" glasses.

B

No, but it helps make glasses that stay sold.

[Wes]

No, but it helps make glasses that stay sold.

Yep. Having satisfied patients fosters repeat business. It's much easier to sell to someone who already trusts your skills.

[Diane]

No, but it helps make glasses that stay sold.

Where's the like button? :)

Diane

[anthonyf1509]

It has been my experience that it’s fruitless to argue with those who claim expertise based solely on lengthy work experience. And, while it is difficult to determine the knowledge base of those arguing against education for opticians, it is possible to present a few selected test results from past practical examinations for contemplation. When we discuss the current and future state of opticianry, consider the following test results from a one year period:

From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 36% cannot neutralize the distance portion.
From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 36% cannot the measure fitting cross height.
From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 51% cannot measure the amount of prism thinning.
From a pair of mounted progressive addition lenses, 40% cannot analyze the lenses for unwanted vertical prism
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 51% cannot determine the add power.
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 66% cannot measure thedistance between prism reference points.
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 22% cannot identify the seg width.
From a pair of mounted bifocal lenses, 54% cannot analyze the lenses for unwanted vertical prism.
55% cannot calculate vertical imbalance.
41% cannot split prism for best cosmetic effect.
22% cannot transpose a prescription.

The bottom line is that ignorance is not a professional quality even for an optical salesclerk.

I'm too new to this field to elaborate much with you folks in more depth, but...
These numbers are because other opticals employ joe schmoe. And while they keep employing them, my pockets continue to get fatter because of them. At least there is some silver lining :)
So if it never happens, education across the board, then some will still thrive because of it
Being concerned with only what we can control,
Anthony

That's only posted to help break up some of the banter, because I know many good business people, on this site, are also thriving, and a lot has to do with idiots running wild at other shops, practically shooing them down the street to our offices. Gotta love that!

[Roy R. Ferguson]

Until you can divine a way to enlighten and convince the general public as to the why any of the above it pertinent and of direct importance to them - you will continue to see downward pressure on wages and upward on production volume...not education or papers on the wall. Something web vendors (an many big boxes, chains and even some independents to a lesser degree perhaps) are exploiting with wild success.

Why would anyone choose to work in a field and not try to be the very best at what they do? Using an employer or poor wages as an excuse for ignorance and mediocrity makes no sense. Review the statistics and ask why anyone would spend at least three years in a technical field and be unable to perform such basic tasks. The answer must lie in the way the professional knowledge is being presented.

[Uilleann]

Looking back at the mammoth "Entry Requirements" thread that spawned the SAO, he didn't like the venues, that he would have to pay to attend and that we were perceived to be in bed with the other organizations.

I asked the Utahn once what he was doing to advance opticianry and he replied with his usual flippant attitude that those that need to know already know. I gave up on him after that.

OK, let's see here:

Wrong.
Wrong.
And Yep.

There's a lot more as well, that transpired beyond the board here. It all worked towards the ridiculous concept from the latest new group of "If you're not for us, you're absolutely against us!". Which is true only in certain aspects of methodology, but was far from an across the board sentiment. But as things have progressed in time, it's become much easier to question motives and goals of the newest bunch of good ol boys.