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

[Uilleann]

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.

Not pursuing a random degree can hardly be equated to not wanting to be the best at what they do. And remember that employers are driven by their bottom line. Will they see a massive increase in their sales with the commensurate massive increase in their payroll required to hire a degree vs non? Of course not, because the public who funds them in every aspect of their business doesn't care.

I agree with you 100% that knowledge in the field is not presented in any sort of consistent fashion. But as there is no viable way to change that today, or the foreseeable future, it will remain what it is. Employers nationwide know the requirements to dispense, and good business sense will drive wages down, and keep skill sets just good - enough. 20/happy is good enough for most all of the eyeglass wearing public, and that's easily enough found in most dispensaries in the country and online. It's surprising what some might tolerate if they only have to pay tens of dollars for their eyewear, instead of hundreds or thousands.

[Wes]

Another insinuation of no post-secondary educational experience?

Are you insinuating the opposite? Why insinuate? Why not just come clean? What post-secondary education have you had? What credentials do you hold / have you held? ANY?

This reminds me of the writer of that sensationalized article you posted and were mislead by.
She had no solid data, and presented what she had in a misleading manner. She sensationalised a non-story. If she had data that supported her position, she would have used it.
You sensationalize. You "suggest" that you're formally educated, yet refuse to discuss. Where are the credentials to support your rants?

We're not against anyone. That you feel our push to further formal ed was somehow "against you" demonstrates your lack of vision.

My goals are clear. I intend to contribute to the elevation of the profession.
I have assisted many on this board and off it to elevate their skills and knowledge.
I have spent a great deal of my own time and money helping get the SAO off of the ground, and effect a positive influence on the profession.
What have you done?

[Roy R. Ferguson]

None of this helps "sell" glasses.

While voluntary, ANSI standards still establish the standards of care for the ophthalmic industry. Why would someone want to “sell” eyeglasses and not know what the heck they are selling? Better yet, why would any sentient Ophthalmologist or Optometrist entrust the product of years of professional training to an optical salesclerk who can’t identify the seg width of a visible bifocal? Such colossal ignorance eventually works its way back to the prescriber where it proves embarrassing for all concerned.

[Wes]

I agree with you 100% that knowledge in the field is not presented in any sort of consistent fashion. But as there is no viable way to change that today, or the foreseeable future, it will remain what it is.

There are viable ways, and they are being fleshed out even as you complain.
Will you fight a positive change for the profession? You'll fail.
The more you rail now, the more foolish you will look in the future.

[gmc]

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.

You absolutely cited those as factors that made you unhappy with the founding meeting of the SAO. Of course there were others. You never run out of things to complain about.

Yes, we want those that are like minded to join us and help us raise the bar for future opticians. Those that meet our qualifications are welcome to join and mentor those that will follow. For those that want to meet our qualifications but don't yet qualify, we'll help you get there. If you don't want to be part of that, so be it.

[Uilleann]

You absolutely cited those as factors that made you unhappy with the founding meeting of the SAO. Of course there were others. You never run out of things to complain about.

Yes, we want those that are like minded to join us and help us raise the bar for future opticians. Those that meet our qualifications are welcome to join and mentor those that will follow. For those that want to meet our qualifications but don't yet qualify, we'll help you get there. If you don't want to be part of that, so be it.

Unhappy? Yes. It was extremely difficult for many of us to attend what ended up being exactly what we were hoping it wouldn't - for numerous reasons you're welcome to speculate upon as long as you like. That didn't mean we had no desire to attend.

Of course, you want the like minded sheeple to be a part of your group. That's easy. What you don't want, and actively try to suppress is any form of dissenting opinion at any and all cost - regardless of merit or reality.

Good luck.

[Uilleann]

Another's take on the value of higher ed.

[Judy Canty]

Peter Thiel--Undergrad and law school at Stanford. Once again a college grad trying to convince others that a college education is unnecessary...winnowing the fields, as it were. Far easier to hold on to your place when no one else is prepared to compete.

[Steve Machol]

Let's keep personal attacks out of this please.

[hcjilson]

+1

[Barry Santini]

While voluntary, ANSI standards still establish the standards of care for the ophthalmic industry. Why would someone want to “sell” eyeglasses and not know what the heck they are selling? Better yet, why would any sentient Ophthalmologist or Optometrist entrust the product of years of professional training to an optical salesclerk who can’t identify the seg width of a visible bifocal? Such colossal ignorance eventually works its way back to the prescriber where it proves embarrassing for all concerned.

I agree Roy. But...theoretical and technical training is simply NOT enough to make opticians seen by their employer as assets rather than expenses. WE need sales traing. I suggest you read "The art of the sale." Essential reading to survive today.

Barry

[idispense]

,,

[idispense]

,,

[Johns]

I agree Roy. But...theoretical and technical training is simply NOT enough to make opticians seen by their employer as assets rather than expenses. WE need sales traing. I suggest you read "The art of the sale." Essential reading to survive today.

Barry

You don't go to a job with only one tool in your tool box. If you only have technical, or only have sales training, you don't have enough tools to do the job properly. Why not have as many tools as possible? (That certainly makes a potential hire more valuable to me)

[anthonyf1509]

idispense, unfortunately George W created a system where failing people (or growing a pair) will get the teacher left behind, because it's all about #'s!
I'm a secondary education major and I couldn't go through with teaching at my high school after a short 6 month sub stint.
Not enough freedom to invoke passion and change.
Too frustrating.

For all of you who want change? I suggest you change, professions and get into government. It's the only way you'll see your plans and hopes carry on. Thats how you'll make our field regulated. It's all silly government. So keep trying...

[idispense]

,,

[MakeOptics]

Give them sales training, watch them screw up lenses that cost a small fortune and then watch the powers that be implement technical training. The train has left the station years before my time and many others; the time for technical training is over. Too many of the courses lack a proper sales and business component. Focus on getting higher end products sold and then the need for a technical program becomes a more polarizing issue.

I am all for education, but I don't think every dim wit should be educated and with that I don't think every dim wit should be an optician. Unfortunately that is the case right now, the range of skill and ability is great. Employers are looking for the maximum amount of skill for the least amount of money; this is the formula for good value. It just doesn't make much sense to have highly skilled individual selling low cost products, or better yet let me say low risk products. As long as labs will take on the majority of the risk and vendors continue to take on a business’s risk, then the who cares if the staff makes an awful amount of mistakes when dispensing as long as there is a smooth talker in the office to make things good with the client the only consideration becomes cost of labor. Change that; get rid of ridiculous warranties, the return as many frames as you want vendors, and watch the educated dispenser flourish.

[idispense]

,,

[idispense]

,,

[price]

We had the chance to go to Atlanta,Ohio,Texas and back to Ohio we were invited by Dr McDonald to come to Atlanta some did and the others did'nt show. Its about education for opticans higher education. If you don't understand keep your head in the sand. I would like to rasie the BAR of education. This is the start for opticanry.

[idispense]

,,

[idispense]

,,

[idispense]

,,

[gmc]

Why not add to Barry's list as negate it?

Where was it negated?

[idispense]

,,