Thanks for stepping in drk. The myth of the catch-all "millenial" term actually meaning anything is only perpetuated by those who wish to dismiss people who they are not willing to understand, or sympathize with.Originally Posted by drk
I feel like it's always about pointing out who we are not, instead of who we are.
Well how often do you see people over 30 getting glasses from WP? I mean it happens, but then again some grown men dress up like My Little Pony. Generalizations have their place, and mine were not out of line.
Exactly, Tallboy. I started out in southern MD. "Opticians" is a very loose term to use there. My analytical brain and desire to learn is what pushed me to be the best possible optician I could be. And I will never be where I want to be, because I will always learn something new in this field.
Last edited by jcasowder; 05-11-2015 at 02:17 PM.
"You can't think about it, you just gotta let your brain do the work....."
my dad
YOU must justify...which many have not...why a mark-up of 8x and more has been warranted for the cheap stk lenses and frames I've seen and so many are boastful.
Sure, when you can "control" the sale by prescribing from the chair and making believe that you have no real competition, ok.
B
This is not helpful. At J Sargent Reynolds the labs have to be done in person per their website (yes, even for distance learning). Other online programs state you must be present during finals week.
Since numbers don't matter, why not just make at even thou?
The actual markup is typically a 2x-3x markup, maybe lower on suns. Rent isn't free, qualified staff isn't free, student loans don't go away just because some goofballs want to get into the business with nothing but a website and some "clever" marketing.
In other words, if you see the average optometrist living in Tony Stark's mansion and driving an Aston Martin, you may have a point. As it stands, it just sounds like sour grapes.
Nope. You're missing my point. Many supply equal to or inferior quality to WP for 2-3x their price.
THAT's my point!.
B
And they have 2-3x the overhead, no doubt.
Off topic, take it to the WP thread.
Go read post #170' you don't have to go to school!
Using 24/7's scenario, as opticians we should be able to understand all Rx's big and small and know what the Rx is intended to do for the patient. It should not require a specialist unless someone is uncomfortable or ill equipped. That's why I went to school, to fill prescriptions. I am quite sure that you would not turn away a client who came to you with such a prescription. An OD should be able to perform a comprehensive eye exam. Likewise, an optician should be able to fit and fill a properly executed ophthalmic system. If not, these people should not be called opticians but sales associates.
I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. Mark Twain
I thought I already responded to this, apparently it didn't post. Rather than typing it all out again and addressing your points, I will just address the NAO's Career Progression Program comment. You need to be sponsored by an optician. When I spoke to the State they said it had to be an approved licensed optician. It can't just be anyone. They also did not know where I could find this approved optician. It should not be this hard. You bring up a valid point about the barbers needing to be licensed; however, there are 10x the amounts of schools to achieve their education OR they have the option to apprentice which seems more like an "on your honor" validation system. I'm not saying being licensed doesn't hold any value. I'm just saying my 6 years of experience shouldn't be flippantly dismissed.
Honestly, this entire conversation is getting exhausting. Instead of hearing the issues people have with the licensure system, people want to barrel full speed ahead with blinders on pushing an agenda and not pausing to see the full picture. If people really want to progress opticians then they need to address all hurdles facing licensure, rather than just the fact that not all states require it.
And for the LAST time, I am NOT trying to dumb down this profession. I am asking real questions. It seems like to me that the people who are in support of licensure are faced with someone who is not, or who is on the fence, they want to barrel forward with the same responses over and over and never really say anything of value because they are not LISTENING to the points being brought up. Seriously though...
On a similar note, I'm curious if the same people who think opticians need to be licensed also think lab technicians/owners need to be licensed?
No, they do not. It is the individual proving the professional service to the patient directly who needs a license. One state, New Jersey, licenses lab techs, but I see no valid reason for that license and never have.
I know this is getting frustrating, but I think if you call the program director at J Sargent Reynolds, you will see that you can do the work from your location. I may be wrong, but I am almost certain I am not.
Now, I am getting a sense that you really want to learn, but your initial threads, and many to follow, degrade a time-tested approach that many fought hard to achieve. To think that is not offensive is naïve, and you need to consider that.
To the Career Progression Program, and the apprenticeship.......no not anyone can do it. In NY, as in most licensed states, an Optician (someone with the professional title) must be licensed by the state. There are many licensed Opticians in NY who would mentor you, and serve as your sponsor. Hell, if I were close I would do it myself, because I do feel you want to achieve a goal, or you would not have hung around this long in this thread. I do not know where in NY you are, but let me know, and I will see what I can do to help, or contact my colleague, Prof. Robert Russo at NY City College of Technology. Let him know I sent you, and what your needs are.
Finally, if we loosen standards,, we are dumbing down, and while you may not realize it, that is exactly what you propose. If you want help, we'll find it for you, but you need to understand the full picture.
I can not take any more of this without throwing in my two cents.
So you chose to move to a state that has made getting one's license tough. Why would you move there? Did you have no choice?
I am a military spouse and I had no choice when we moved to my new state. I was not upset because Washington is a licensed state, and having come from Connecticut, I was thrilled, with the knowledge that CT has some of the most stringent requirements for Licensure. Now, I was lucky I went to optical school before kids, so I had the time and energy, and it was a community college. Back in 2000, it cost the ridiculous price (read the sarcasm please) of 1250/semester, plus the price of books. It's now up to 1850/ semester. I know people who spend more on their cable bill every three months than this. I CHOSE to be an optician, which meant that I could apprentice or go to school.
Fast forward 16 years later, I am married to a Navy guy, and I'm moving to WA. I find out that the tough requirements of CT are not acknowledged here, so I need to retake my state exam. Or I can forever be an apprentice optician. I would probably make the same amount of money either way to be honest. I did do some *itching about having to take the test, mostly to my husband, but I'm pretty sure I complained here about this. I took 3 weeks off of work when I moved, took my test, and passed.
So, did you get forced to move to NY? BEcause I can understand being frustrated about getting forced to move, and suddenly you have to jump through hoops to keep doing what you WANT to do for a job. But come on, get over it. I WANT to be an optometrist because I think I would be really good at it. But I have never lived close enough to a College that has it on their program. I can't exactly complain about that can I? I would also LIKE to have a higher paying job. Again, my bad for not having gone into another career path when I was younger. Don't wanna have to get your license and have to pay all though big giant fees? Move to another state, or find another career, or do what all the rest of us did, and do the work.
Working with both licensed and non licensed people, I can say for a fact that there are plenty of non licensed people who know lots of stuff and are AS learned at those who have degrees and licenses. But they are incredibly few and far between. I don't care who you are, you can't debate that, and if you think you can, you haven't met high quality opticians. PLUS, if you are as passionate about this field as you claim, you would want to go to school. Yeah it sucks to have to do this when you don't have the time, but life kinda sucks sometimes.
Education is the only way that any other profession gets better, so while the heck not optical?
NC, shame on you to even consider giving up on the licensing board!!
Man, I take a weekend off to build a chicken coop and I miss all this fun? Clearly I need to keep up better because this thread has taken me way too long to read, LOL
You know, Barry, some people don't even use a mark up multiplier for optical goods and services like they were so many pairs of socks.
Frankly, we can break any "retail price" into material supply and professional component, and that's how we do it. But we don't itemize it.
I guarantee there is no "8X". I also guarantee that I do prescribe from the chair. All doctors do.
Prescribe AR or photchromics or material upgrades or frames or sunwear or an extra pair? Nah. But prescribe lens form? Yes. Prescribe glasses for multiple purposes? Yes.
What you describe is what Chris Ryser calls the future...and it's here now. I don't completely disagree that many will have to break down their prices the way you described. But some, like me, will continue to offer the package, because want will override need for enough people.
I don't profess to know all what an OD knows. But prescribing from the chair is an area where professionals should always tread carefully.
I think your phrase "fragmented care" is really apropos. But just keep in mind that many people will decide they have a preferred doctor as much as a preferred provider of optical services.
They should be allowed the freedom of choice.
B
Last edited by Barry Santini; 05-12-2015 at 08:00 AM.
In New York there are three routes to the license (one of which is not widely published). AAS degree from a COA accredited Ophthalmic Dispensing program, ( it doesn't matter where the school is, as long as it has COA accreditation) combined with the ABO exam, and that will give you entrance into the final piece - the clinical practical. Or - apprentice for two years with a sponsor, and complete the NAO's CPP, and the ABO, and that will give you entrance to the practical exam. Or - have the ABO completed, and years of experience and a license in a state that has similar professional requirements. In that case you will need to provide extensive documentation to make your case. The Ophthalmic Dispensing Board will then make a decision whether or not to admit you to the practical exam, which is a requirement regardless of the route chosen. PM me if you need more info.
Last edited by SharonB; 05-12-2015 at 06:29 AM. Reason: spelling
Lost and confused in an optical wonderland!
Wow, breathtaking string here. If you will forgive my ignorance (and if I can return to the topic a bit), why has North Carolina deemed Optician's licences unnecessary?
NC did not. Certain members of the new Republican-controlled General Assembly see it as unnecessary, since the majority of states have no licensure, and the NC Board of Opticians was in the red for a couple of years. On top of that a study done by a professor at, if memory serve, George Washington that was commissioned by the White House was highly critical of "occupational licensing" and singled out Opticians. It made national news across the country, and I would be surprised if you had not read it. Opticians in NC are fighting to keep their license in tact, and I am optimistic that a current bill to raise fees (it has been needed for several years, but fought by the NCOA) is now on track. The board, and association are finally working together to see that it does, and I applaud their efforts. So.......NC does did not seek to eliminate their license, any more than PA sought not to have one. I know you guys tried hard, but were stymied by ODs and corporate folks.
"The future is here"
Signed,
Betamax
Crystal Pepsi
HD-DVD
Zune
XFL
Sony Mini-Disc
Neo Geo
Ford Edsel
Google Glass
MySpace
New Coke.
Great statement! I’m going to use that line in the future, let me know where I can send the royalty check.
Paul:cheers:
This is the basis for the national assault on Opticians. I’m not sure when it happened, but at some point it the not so distant past we Opticians stopped caring for patients and started selling to consumers or customers. In most people’s opinion there is no need to educate or train a salesperson and thusly no need to licensed that individual. As a patient I care for the health of your eyes as a consumer I’m mainly concerned about your credit card clearing! The term should be stricken from the optical vernacular and I challenge all to do so, especially the optical leadership and organizations. This line of thinking just plays to the argument of the retailers who support such legislation.
Paul:cheers:
eliminating licensure in NC ..............
Above post's have clicked open a drawer in my memory of the old times with the former OLA yearly exhibitions where I made friends with a former long time Washington lobbyist whose stories about lobbying and handouts were highly interesting and amusing at least to me who had no idea how politicians sometimes can be guided.
Based on that thought and spinning the thread a little further, could it be that the party (non political, but commercial), that would be most interested in eliminating licensure in NC, has been lobbying certain politicians to start this action, and if successful, then do it in other States ?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks