Optometric Physician

[HarryChiling]

Off the Cuff: When is the Shoe on the Other Foot?
This week, let's examine optometry's feelings about optician's being allowed to refract. While a reality in many parts of the world, including parts of Western Canada, here in the USA, optometry is decidedly against refracting by opticians. Ninety-three percent of 514 ODs surveyed for the November Review of Optometry Special Report made that quite clear.
Personally, I have mixed feelings. I am repulsed by the narrow-mindedness and protectionism that optometry continues to encounter as we grow and expand. However, as much as I would like to support practice expansion for opticians, in good conscience I cannot.
One reason is the tremendous variation in state laws for opticians. According to the Department of Labor, only 21 states require a license to practice. This, combined with the huge variation in educational background and training for opticians, is cause for great concern.
To the inexperienced or ignorant, refraction may seem trivial, but for many patients, routine eyecare serves as a primary portal into the healthcare system. For that reason alone, post-graduate training and extensive clinical experience are essential requisites to provide entry-level eye care.
That's not to say there aren't exceptionally knowledgeable and skilled opticians practicing throughout the United States. As leaders in their profession, I encourage them to promote higher and more uniform educational and licensing standards. As we have discovered in optometry, education and uniformity (we're still working on that one) are the keys to expansion of practice scope.

Interesting e-mail I thought I would share.

[obxeyeguy]

Thanks. Interesting perspective.

[Scrumblydumpus]

where did you find this?

I am lucky to be in a licensed state, but even then its an uphill battle for us to get anything done.

In Washington there is only one state license that you can apprentice into... and that is opticianry. You cant even apprentice to get a hairdressing license!

I have an AAS in opticianry, so I am a bit biased towards formal education-however I know that it is possible to get a rich full education from an apprenticeship, I have just never seen a case of that happening around here. Most apprentices I see are just signed up for it in a chain setting and never recive any real instruction from their mentor beyond (hopefully) lensometer lessons.

Apprentices in Washington generally have a 40% pass rate the first time they take our state board exam. My graduating class (of 6) had a 100% pass rate. And I honestly thought the exam was FAR too easy.

but back to my original question, I would very much like to know the source of this article!

[Uilleann]

I found the authors statement interesting:

"...post-graduate training and extensive clinical experience are essential requisites to provide entry-level eye care"

I've refracted in ophthalmologic settings. Was I great? Nope. But I didn't do it long enough to get to a level that I would be perfectly comfortable. I would ask the author (if I could) why he or she felt specifically post-graduate training was an absolute requirement in order to learn great refraction technique. I would agree that the best refractionists are those with more skill and clinical experience, but it can be learned by most. Interesting viewpoint however. Thanks for sharing with us!

[wmcdonald]

The person who wrote that initial email to Harry is absolutely correct. The ONLY way for Opticiary to move forward is through consistent education and training across the country, and a license in every state. Opticians in unlicensed states, that require only a pulse to call yourself an Optician, and in licensed states must have a similar background before they understand the full scope of what Opticianry can become. Until then, we will be forever mired in whatever state of existance you feel we are in currently. If you like where we are, then the world should remain static, but if not we must take action if it is not too late! Currently there exists a wide variance in opinions on what an Optician is or should be, and I feel that is a function of the training and/oreducation one received. I think we need to gain professional status through an education. That means going to school, and receiving a complete theoretical background and a degree. NO other health-related "profession" utilizes apprenticeship any longer, and there are many studies that indicate that apprenticeship is fine for technical training, but do not provide a well-rounded platform for professional development. Now.....some will jump on and say that they were apprentices and were trained by the greatest Optician of all time, and that may be true, but the "trainers" of today are limited to what they were taught, and that comes from the knowledge, skill, and abilities of the trainer. Making a pretty pair of spectacles alone does not make a professional Optician. The vicious cycle we find ourselves on is that with each new generation, we dumb ourselves down further. We need to be educated, and well-trained. I can teach someone to refract, but a clear understanding of the theory behind it is what should be significant here. For those who disagree with my thesis, why are you so fearful of education? If it is not necessay, why then is a license required to do what we do? If you can do it by working for someone for a couple of years, and take a 100-question, multiple-choice exam are you then a "professional"? I think not. We must get real with ourselves. It is not even about us, but those who follow. We were once an honorable profession. Now people come into the field because it is good, clean work that requires little to NO education and/or training and poof, we are professionals. I have been singing this song for 25 years, and it has not improved. I doubt it will.

[Fezz]

The person who wrote that initial email to Harry is absolutely correct. The ONLY way for Opticiary to move forward is through consistent education and training across the country, and a license in every state. Opticians in unlicensed states, that require only a pulse to call yourself an Optician, and in licensed states must have a similar background before they understand the full scope of what Opticianry can become. Until then, we will be forever mired in whatever state of existance you feel we are in currently. If you like where we are, then the world should remain static, but if not we must take action if it is not too late! Currently there exists a wide variance in opinions on what an Optician is or should be, and I feel that is a function of the training and/oreducation one received. I think we need to gain professional status through an education. That means going to school, and receiving a complete theoretical background and a degree. NO other health-related "profession" utilizes apprenticeship any longer, and there are many studies that indicate that apprenticeship is fine for technical training, but do not provide a well-rounded platform for professional development. Now.....some will jump on and say that they were apprentices and were trained by the greatest Optician of all time, and that may be true, but the "trainers" of today are limited to what they were taught, and that comes from the knowledge, skill, and abilities of the trainer. Making a pretty pair of spectacles alone does not make a professional Optician. The vicious cycle we find ourselves on is that with each new generation, we dumb ourselves down further. We need to be educated, and well-trained. I can teach someone to refract, but a clear understanding of the theory behind it is what should be significant here. For those who disagree with my thesis, why are you so fearful of education? If it is not necessay, why then is a license required to do what we do? If you can do it by working for someone for a couple of years, and take a 100-question, multiple-choice exam are you then a "professional"? I think not. We must get real with ourselves. It is not even about us, but those who follow. We were once an honorable profession. Now people come into the field because it is good, clean work that requires little to NO education and/or training and poof, we are professionals. I have been singing this song for 25 years, and it has not improved. I doubt it will.

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[Uilleann]

Indeed - well said. I didn't mean to question the need or value of a great education. Perhaps I took the original author's sentiment the wrong way. But I DO believe anyone can learn to refract. I do NOT believe anyone can learn to do it well. In my own experience, I was working as a COA, not an optician. This is an ophthalmological certification that at least in this state does not require formal instruction. Just as with the ABO/NCLE, it requires an understanding of basic knowledge pertaining to the field. I do believe you must work in the setting for a given number of months as well before sitting for the exams. But COA's refract here. In every office I was in, it was always double checked by the MD or OD as well however.

Do the COA requirements vary from state to state as well? This was a few years back, and they may have changed the requirements here as well, but I honestly haven't looked into it since then.

[chip anderson]

Gee: Den can we be Optician Physicians?

Sorry, just couldn't resisit it.

Chip

[tmorse]

I think we need to gain professional status through an education. That means going to school, and receiving a complete theoretical background and a degree. NO other health-related "profession" utilizes apprenticeship any longer, and there are many studies that indicate that apprenticeship is fine for technical training... I have been singing this song for 25 years, and it has not improved. I doubt it will.

Yet TEXAS has adopted the apprentice-ship style 2-year NAIT Dispensing program, and the first-year NAIT program is even waived if a person shows evidence of having passed the simple 100 question multiple-choice ABO exam. I have to assume its the same for the NAIT 2-year apprentices-ship style Contact Lens program... pass the simple 125 question NCLE exam and NAIT's first-year CL program is also waived.

[EdgeOptical]

I would love to see it change so Opticians can refract, i could see where that would be a big workload relief to od's. it doesnt eliminate the need for od's or anything like that, if anything it can help with further care.

but with that comes great responsibility, and oversight.

I think every state should become liscensed. within that, create another level, say "master Optician" and only those are able to refract. create a certification system alogn with any formal training and testing to be able to perform those dutys.

in the same way, i would love to see places like wal-mart, lenscrafters, etc. have to have a cert'd optician on duty at all times, they have to sign off on everything, they are held accountable. then everyone else is either a sales associate, or apprentice. I know this "may" be the structure some places have, but make it a requirement.


as of now, i am unliscensed. i was preparing for the test a few years ago, when i decided to leave the field. now coming back to it again, my ABO is something i see as a nessicity. I still feel i would be ill prepared to refract (given the ability) though. we do have an optician here that i have 110% confidence in, and know he could theoretically walk in the exam room now and have no problem refracting and i would trust his Rx over many of the doctors i have dealt with in the past. He also has 45+ years of expereince.


i hope i didnt ramble much, and hope that made sense somewhat.

yes Opticians* should refract

[HarryChiling]

Indeed - well said. I didn't mean to question the need or value of a great education. Perhaps I took the original author's sentiment the wrong way. But I DO believe anyone can learn to refract. I do NOT believe anyone can learn to do it well. In my own experience, I was working as a COA, not an optician. This is an ophthalmological certification that at least in this state does not require formal instruction. Just as with the ABO/NCLE, it requires an understanding of basic knowledge pertaining to the field. I do believe you must work in the setting for a given number of months as well before sitting for the exams. But COA's refract here. In every office I was in, it was always double checked by the MD or OD as well however.

Do the COA requirements vary from state to state as well? This was a few years back, and they may have changed the requirements here as well, but I honestly haven't looked into it since then.

COA:

1. 1 Year under the supervision of an Ophthalmologist and a distance learning course provided by the AOA
2. CPR Certification
3. 300 question multiple choice test

COA's usually don't refract in the office. COT's refract and if you go to JCAHPO.org you will see that COA's are assistants and COT's are technicians and they top it off with COMT medical technologist, there scope is such because they CANNOT practice independently, if opticians were willing to give up our independent status we too would be accepted with open arms and allowed to refract in OD and OMD offices.

There is no state to state differences between COA's COT's or COMT's their work is delegated by the doctor who can delegate surgery and in cases does if they choose.

The article was written by Art Epstein OD FAAO Chief Medical Editor for Optometric Physician, his views are accurate to a tee or at least I thought so. I can walk into the majority of opticals in my area and find a warm body that probably can't spell "ophthalmic", calls an "1/8th diopter" a "1/12th diopter", or cannot use a lensometer more often than I can walk into an optical in my area and find an optician. I found it interesting and worthy of discussion so I posted it.

It was a few months ago that I realized that their are opticians then their are those that call themselves opticians, if this statement offends you you may know which side of that fence you sit on. The amazing thing is most of what we do can be learned with a very basic education and the ground work would be set. I don't think I want licensure so much anymore, I have felt this way for the last few months and just don't see the benefit. The opticians I look up to that are truly opticians most own their own shops so licensure would increase their labor costs, the opticians (if we can call them that) that push for licensure are only pushing because they want higher wages but they don't want the extra work (eg school, CE's, networking, membership dues in associations).

[HarryChiling]

Yet TEXAS has adopted the apprentice-ship style 2-year NAIT Dispensing program, and the first-year NAIT program is even waived if a person shows evidence of having passed the simple 100 question multiple-choice ABO exam. I have to assume its the same for the NAIT 2-year apprentices-ship style Contact Lens program... pass the simple 125 question NCLE exam and NAIT's first-year CL program is also waived.

Hey watch it, it's a good program and from what I know the state society came to schools in the US to try and get an affordable program within their state, but none of the schools could do it and none could offer a program that was distance learning. If there is no way to educate opticians it's a moot point to argue we need to educate. If I am correct your program is only 6 months and incorporates contacts and eyeglasses, that's 3 months a piece and your students seem to do just fine and your country seems to allow your program as a means toward licensure. It may not be the end all be all of education but in states that have nothing it's nice to see a light at the end of the tunnel, maybe you can offer a distance learning program for opticians in states that have been abandoned.

[optical24/7]

COA:

1. 1 Year under the supervision of an Ophthalmologist and a distance learning course provided by the AOA
2. CPR Certification
3. 300 question multiple choice test

COA's usually don't refract in the office. COT's refract and if you go to JCAHPO.org you will see that COA's are assistants and COT's are technicians and they top it off with COMT medical technologist, there scope is such because they CANNOT practice independently, if opticians were willing to give up our independent status we too would be accepted with open arms and allowed to refract in OD and OMD offices.

There is no state to state differences between COA's COT's or COMT's their work is delegated by the doctor who can delegate surgery and in cases does if they choose.

The article was written by Art Epstein OD FAAO Chief Medical Editor for Optometric Physician, his views are accurate to a tee or at least I thought so. I can walk into the majority of opticals in my area and find a warm body that probably can't spell "ophthalmic", calls an "1/8th diopter" a "1/12th diopter", or cannot use a lensometer more often than I can walk into an optical in my area and find an optician. I found it interesting and worthy of discussion so I posted it.

It was a few months ago that I realized that their are opticians then their are those that call themselves opticians, if this statement offends you you may know which side of that fence you sit on. The amazing thing is most of what we do can be learned with a very basic education and the ground work would be set. I don't think I want licensure so much anymore, I have felt this way for the last few months and just don't see the benefit. The opticians I look up to that are truly opticians most own their own shops so licensure would increase their labor costs, the opticians (if we can call them that) that push for licensure are only pushing because they want higher wages but they don't want the extra work (eg school, CE's, networking, membership dues in associations).

Harry...I think I take offence to your last sentence. There are folks like me, Warren, Sam Johnson, B.J. Rust ( to name just a few) whom won't personally benifit from required state licensure. We're at the zenith of our careers. Sam and BJ own their own locations, yet still push for mandatory state licensure.

Licensure doesn't guarantee higher wages. There are opticians here in Texas that make way more than the vast majority in licenced states. There are many other factors that dictate what an optician makes in a given geo area.

The vast majority of whom I know that are pushing for licensure are doing it for the secure future of opticianry ( and for the public's interest!). If anyone is doing it for higher wages, they are extremely mis-guided.




And Warren, excellent insight, I agree with you 100%!

[wmcdonald]

Indeed - well said. I didn't mean to question the need or value of a great education. Perhaps I took the original author's sentiment the wrong way. But I DO believe anyone can learn to refract. I do NOT believe anyone can learn to do it well. In my own experience, I was working as a COA, not an optician. This is an ophthalmological certification that at least in this state does not require formal instruction. Just as with the ABO/NCLE, it requires an understanding of basic knowledge pertaining to the field. I do believe you must work in the setting for a given number of months as well before sitting for the exams. But COA's refract here. In every office I was in, it was always double checked by the MD or OD as well however.

Do the COA requirements vary from state to state as well? This was a few years back, and they may have changed the requirements here as well, but I honestly haven't looked into it since then.

There is no variation in the requirements for a Certified Ophthalmic Assistant (COA) from state-to-state. It is a certification developed by the American Academy of Ophthalmology to certify basic knowledge for assistants. Licenses are issued by the state and with Opticianry, vary greatly. There are actually 22 states that license Opticians. The remaining states have NO requirements.

[wmcdonald]

Yet TEXAS has adopted the apprentice-ship style 2-year NAIT Dispensing program, and the first-year NAIT program is even waived if a person shows evidence of having passed the simple 100 question multiple-choice ABO exam. I have to assume its the same for the NAIT 2-year apprentices-ship style Contact Lens program... pass the simple 125 question NCLE exam and NAIT's first-year CL program is also waived.

NAIT is a well-designed program of study combined with apprenticeship. It provides the theoretical component, which is what is lacking. Hell, even your extermely short 6-month program is better than nothing. My friend Ray Dennis tells me it is actually quite well done. The concern is that most Opticians in the US get NOTHING! We must have consistency across the country, and uniformity of education and training requirements. What problem do you have with that, if you are an educator?

To be fair, I am the US representative for NAIT Optical Sciences in the US.

[wmcdonald]

Harry,
Education is important for the future. We need to have consistency across the US regarding education and training, and to truly agree on what an Optician is in all jurisdictions of the country. Canada is ahead of us there, and I applaud them thinking strategically, while we sit and wonder what happened. Owning a shop is good, if you can generate the Rx's to survive, but we are at a competitive disadvantage. ODs now are running retail establishments and offer eye exams.....a one-stop shop. We cannot. Until we expand our scope a bit, we will remain that way. The only way to advance is to increase our standards, and think of those who follow. With that comes licensure across the country. If we truly are doing things that can hut the public, don't you feel licensure is necessary? When those goals are achieved, we will have arrived. It will the development of a strategy to accomplish, and that means that the leadership across the country must remain focused on the prize (as Optometry did) to make the goal a reality. It can happen if we work and don't get discouraged. The ODs are a model for us all.

Warren

[chip anderson]

Mr. McDonald:

Our main problem is not the fact that O.D.'s are running one stop shops. Our problems began when the O.M.D.'s started running one stop shops. Licensure isn't going to help this.

Chip

[HarryChiling]

Harry...I think I take offence to your last sentence. There are folks like me, Warren, Sam Johnson, B.J. Rust ( to name just a few) whom won't personally benifit from required state licensure. We're at the zenith of our careers. Sam and BJ own their own locations, yet still push for mandatory state licensure.

Licensure doesn't guarantee higher wages. There are opticians here in Texas that make way more than the vast majority in licenced states. There are many other factors that dictate what an optician makes in a given geo area.

The vast majority of whom I know that are pushing for licensure are doing it for the secure future of opticianry ( and for the public's interest!). If anyone is doing it for higher wages, they are extremely mis-guided.




And Warren, excellent insight, I agree with you 100%!

The last thing I want to do is offend you bro, but I took a really good look and took a really good inventory of the state of our profession and You, Warren, BJ, Sam are the exceptions to the rule. I know it's sad but it's also true. I want licensure but not if the sole purpose is for some po dunk optician that want's higher wages and wants to be grandfathered in with no education. When and if that happens I want to be first in line to qualify as an optician. I know Sam put up money to take a course that more than likely taught him nothing he didn't already know he did it to show that he too is an optician and isn't above the rules, untill we shed that above the rules mentality were destined to fail at all attempts.

The only way to advance is to increase our standards, and think of those who follow. With that comes licensure across the country. If we truly are doing things that can hut the public, don't you feel licensure is necessary?

I would love licensure for the right reasons but everytime I hear it brought the vast majority of opticians feel that licensure is the means to higher wages. Thats incidental to the goal of making sure that the public is well served, how many times has a licensure debate morphed into an arguement over how much some guy gets paid or underpaid? That's gotta stop, the focus should be on how we help the public and how those that don't know what they are doing are actually harming the public. I spend half my days troubleshooting horribly made eyewear, the majority of the new patients I see are discouraged when it comes to purchasing eyewear. They should enjoy picking out frames, feel confident, I should be doing all the hard work.

If we truly care about our patients we would strive to be better opticians licensure or not, we should be scratching and clawing to learn more licensure or not. Licenusure will be easy to get if the majority of opticians across this country improved themselves even a little, every optician in a 6mo course today and I could almost guarentee you that in less than 2 years time licensure would be a reality. It's the least common denominator people as long as the vast majority remains complacent we ain't got a snowballs chance. We'd be lucky if one perosn viewing this thread were to get inspired and better themselves.

Warren I don't see a plan, I see a snake with it's head chopped off every time I look. I hear older opticians talking about how easy it is now adays while still refusing to better themselves, I guess since the new generation is so dumb we can all afford to forget some stuff.

Warren I love you to death man, I'll walk into flames with you if you asked me too don't think I am discouraged, quite the opposite, I'm ****** off and have been for quite some time. Everytime I pick up a book I learn how dumb I am, there is soooooooooooooooooooooooo much I don't know, the fact that there is sooo much that I don't even know that I don't know is mind boggling. But the profession is saturated with people who know everything and don't need to learn or want to get paid before they learn. If you ask me our profession is obese and could stand to shed a few pounds.

BTW, January is natioanl opticians month call the OAA and get them to send your state societies a packet for your state govenor.

Example: http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33028

I hate putting this guy out on front street, but this guys is an optician. I could probably pull a hundred or more threads in less than an hour.

Check out task 2 of the National Aprenticeship Standards: http://www.doleta.gov/oa/bul07/NationalGuidelines.pdf

Basic Optics so this guy is a begining apprentice and would probably be offended if someone called him that, the retort may be how many years longer he's been doing this. We don't even follow our apprenticeship standards. Ho wmany Optometrists would be offended if I ran around calling myself an Optometrist? Not to mention it's illegal to even use the title unless you've earned it. I never earned the title optician it was just handed to me, it came with no expectations, no goals, and no knowledge. Here I am some 10+ years later and nothign has changed I still look in the paper and see will train and find untrained employee's all over the state.

[wmcdonald]

Mr. McDonald:

Our main problem is not the fact that O.D.'s are running one stop shops. Our problems began when the O.M.D.'s started running one stop shops. Licensure isn't going to help this.

Chip

The point is we are at a competitive disadvantage. Yes, Ophthalmologists now dispense. They changed to meet the times.....we did not. That is the problem as I see it.

[wmcdonald]

Harry writes: Warren I don't see a plan, I see a snake with it's head chopped off every time I look. I hear older opticians talking about how easy it is now adays while still refusing to better themselves, I guess since the new generation is so dumb we can all afford to forget some stuff.

I hear you , Harry. We have no solid national organization to rally around, and most of the state societies have little to no membership. People see this now as a job, not a profession, and I fear it will get worse. Many do not see an issue.

Harry writes: Warren I love you to death man, I'll walk into flames with you if you asked me too don't think I am discouraged, quite the opposite, I'm ****** off and have been for quite some time. Everytime I pick up a book I learn how dumb I am, there is soooooooooooooooooooooooo much I don't know, the fact that there is sooo much that I don't even know that I don't know is mind boggling. But the profession is saturated with people who know everything and don't need to learn or want to get paid before they learn. If you ask me our profession is obese and could stand to shed a few pounds.

I am not happy either. Sam and BJ both learned quite a bit, and if you ask them they will tell you they had to work to gain their diploma. It was not easy, and there in lies another issue. Most do not know what they do not know. As long as they can measure a good PD, take a seg height, tell Ms. Jones how good that color looks on her, and collect the fees......by golly, they are a professional! Most cannot find the power of a lens in a given axis if their life depended on it, and it is a shame.

Last thing......many are confused about the issue of salary. In my research, backed up by more recent NAO surveys, licensed states do pay SLIGHTLY more, but it was not statistically significant. The average Optician makes around 40K in the US, and the variation between licensed states and unlicensed is approximately $2500.00. That salary is certainly not bad for an individual with no formal education. Opticians whine and complain about little money, but that is more than most teachers make. Licensure should not be about individual salary, but protecting the public. It also validates a profession through governmental recognition.

I am tiring of this discussion. I have been singing this same song for nearly 30 years. The debate cannot be won, because guys like Chip and others want us to be craftsmen and women. They want us to be solderers, and frame repairers and lab people that do a great job hand-rocking cylinders and doing great hand-edging jobs. All those things must be part and parcel of Opticianry, but technology has made much of that almost obsolete. We have not changed to meet the times! We must keep the technical skills (or at least what is relevant in today's environment), but I want us to be true professionals, and more importantly, to be recognized as such by other professionals. I want us to expand to new and different heights, and I still believe we can reach them. Then, and only then, we can get rid of all the BS alphabet soup many have behind their names. We will have real meaning as a profession. That comes by paying our dues in classrooms and in training programs.

[chip anderson]

The thought of craftsmen and women. Problem is the women no longer want to be that. Your phrasing does sound rather Utopian though.


Chip

[Dannyboy]

Refraction by opticians is not new news until is independently practiced by the very few independent opticians that are left in practice. Optometry has nothing to worry with us, even if we elevate our degree of training as we are already a slaved profession. We are not assistants but truly the vast majority of opticians are certainly not independent opticians. They are 90% employed by chains, OD or MDs.

Education is key if we are to advance to the next level but I think it is to late, if we do it with the concept of each one of us to set up shop and be an owner. Optometry has given us their back, that is why I find it rather arrogant for them to give their opinions on a completely different profession than theirs (even if the e mail is right)

I believe that every optometry school is now closely working with medical schools. I even believe that that fact was not by accident but rather by a smart decision of AOA. Opticianry schools should be requierd to do the same with ophthalmology programs.

Dr. McDonald, education normally leads to more economic earnings and with the present earning potential of employed opticians that goal is simply not going to happen. Education may be ideal but the earnings of opticians is not going to increase until the loopholes on dispensing are closed. If an MD or OD owns an Optical store they should be required to either do it themselves or hire a trained optician and that is simlpy not going to happen. Dispensing is a cash cow for their devaluating services.
They say dispensing is not brain surgery...I say refraction is not brain surgery.


Dannyboy:)

[chip anderson]

Education vs on-the-job. There are all the West Point paper generals in the pentagon an then there is Tommy Franks, who started as a private.
But then he may not have been good at calculus.

Surely this world can tollerate skilled on the job trained opticians as well as the formally educated.


Chip

[Jacqui]

anderson;275475[/SIZE]]The thought of craftsmen and women. Problem is the women no longer want to be that. Your phrasing does sound rather Utopian though.


Chip

Huh ????

[HarryChiling]

I have already said way too much so this will be the last post in this thread from me, I thought I would share this because it's nice to see that all optometrists aren't closed minded and the maority even the ones that can see us refracting which is a secondary issue; have one point in common. WE HAVE A HUGE VARIATION IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING. Have you seen infomercials on TV for medical assisting? Infomercials for criminal justice? Yet nothing for opticianry. We don't even have crap programs in the unlicensed states. Opticians need to change their attitude towards education.